M/s.V.R.Farms Pvt Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

5. Broadly speaking, these were the submissions of the learned counsel on both sides. However, before we embark upon a discussion of the issues at hand we feel that it would be appropriate if the contentions of the learned counsel are set out in somewhat greater detail. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant/revenue that section 234B provides

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. M/s Indur Green Power Private Limited

In the result, all the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Depreciation 1,05,72,696 1,10,86,334 1,26,18,427 1,39,66,450 Total Expenditure 4,81,29,896 4,75,41,722 5,01,63,902 3,88,21,912 Profit for the year 2,53,21,438 2,09,87,242 62,58,319 836236 Add Balance brought forward

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/s Padmapriya Real Estates AND Financiers

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment passed by

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has also been recorded in which he denied the circumstances appears against him, plead innocence and have submitted that he was posted as Junior Engineer from April 1978 to 1979 at PNT Department, Nasik. He was working since February 1980 in Irrigation Department. But the income of the said period was not counted. His wife

THE STATE BANK OF HYD. vs. THE JT.COMMI.SPL.RANGE IV HYD.

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

5. Again: t the aforesaid order of assessm€ nt, €lssessee preferred ar irppeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Taking the vien' that Section 43I) of the Act, V!'aS though in roduced \^,ith elfect from O 1.0,+. 199 1, l 1 retroactive in nature, appellate authority held that on that basis no interest could have been levied. Therefore

The Commissioner of Income Tax - IV vs. M/s. Mekins Agro Product (P) Ltd.

5-P (LXX-6) of 1968, dated July 19, 1968, reads: Where the trust derives income from house 8. property, interest on securities, capital gains, or other sources, the word 'income' should be understood in its commercial sense, i.e., book income, after adding back any appropriations or applications thereof towards the purpose of the trust or otherwise, and also after

INCOME TAX BANGALORE vs. SHALINI BHUPAL

Appeal is dismissed

depreciation in respect of such machi-nery or plant has been allowed or is allowable under the provisions of this Act in computing the total income of any person for any period prior to the date of the installation of the machinery or plant by the assessee. Explanation 2.—Where in the case of an industrial undertaking, any machinery

PROGREESIVE CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

depreciation on tmc[s. Thereafter, uide the assessmenr order dated 31.03.1997 passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 1a8(sz;) o[ the Act, assessing officer computed t zol trn ltz 5 the total incor,re of the assessee at Rs.2,16,89,170.00. Flowever, after adjustmerrt of the refund for earlier assessment y3ars, the amount payabl,: bythe assessee

Commissioner of IncomeTax-2, vs. Mr. Mustafa Alam Khan,

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

5 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Commissioner’ 6 9. Learned Senior Counsel for the assessee contends that the deduction by the AO regarding the amount sought to be amortized in respect of the use of trademarks was rejected on the ground that the deduction is covered by Section 32(1) as well as under Section

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri P.Sarveswara Rao

Appeals are partly allowed, in view of the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

depreciation and not the grant of deduction in respect of Sales-tax collections which had not been paid in accordance with the provisions of sec.43-B of the IT Act. (e) No objection on the issue whether the assessee‟s industrial undertaking was set up in a backward area, notified by the Central Govt. for the purpose of benefit under provisions

Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), vs. M/s Country Club Inda Limited

Section 143(3)/147 of the Act. Assessment Order dated 18th December, 2006 14. The AO observed that the Assessee had not booked any establishment cost, depreciation or any other indirect costs in its accounts. Further, the Assessee had also not showed any source of funds. The AO noted that the equipment stated to have been supplied by the Assessee

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Praga Tools Limited

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,N.RAVI SHANKAR

Depreciation of nditure on R&D u/s 35(2) of revenue expenses on scientific 36,344/- to the Baddi Unit or ion u/s 80IC, when the assessee n e ) o e d e ) C g g f f c r e RAJESH KUMAR 2024.07.29 12:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court

M/s.CCL Products [India] Limited vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax-I

depreciation made by the assessee on the furnace of 4 MT was rejected by the AO. 21. Besides, the statement of Shri Harmesh Arora has several gaps on material issues. For example, the statement of Shri Harmesh Arora is completely silent as to (i) when was furnace of 5 MT was procured and from whom it was procured

THE COMMI.OF INCOME TAX,HYD. vs. VAIBHAV

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

depreciation of earlier )tars, the income of 5 us the assessee was quantified at Rs. 22,61,520.00. It is this order of the Tribunal, nhich is under impugnment in the two appeals before 10. In the appeal filed by the assessee 2.e., I.T.T.ANo .58 o{ 20a2, the substantial question of law raised is whether Tribunal could have quantified

Commissioenr of Income Tax vs. Dr. T. Ravi Kumar

21. The facts of the appellant’s case and sequence of correspondence at the time of assessment is sufficient to establish that the appellant compnay had n intention to conceal its income or furnish inaccurate particular. The facts and figures also support appellant’s contention particularly the loss determined in the assessment for assessment year 1995-96. As already discussed

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 5 vs. M/s Vijay Textiles Limited

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 110 of the Act, if an AOP is chargeable to tax at maximum marginal rate then the share of profits in the hands of the members is not chargeable to tax at all. 19. Now against the above contours of taxability of an AOP, we have to see the facts of the case before us. The first

Shri Maneklal Agarwal vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are allowed and

Bench: A RAMALINGESWARA RAO,DILIP B. BHOSALE

5) On the date when the proposed vendors receive the whole of the sale consideration, they would be bound to hand over the possession of the land in question to the proposed vendee and if the proposed vendee desires, he can get a general power of attorney executed in his favour. (6) (Unaltered) The proposed vendee can clear and level

The Commissioner of Income Tax- I vs. M/s. Avon Organics Limited

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

section 5(1)(xxi) as exemption was claimed as a new and separate unit set up after the commencement of the Act. The Madras High ITA 257/2012 Page 9 of 18 Court at page 824 observes : “Unless a factory is erected and the plant and machinery installed therein, it cannot be said to have been set up. The resolutions

Commissioner of Income-Tax, vs. Rangaraya Medical College Old Students Association

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 16 of the Reforms Act, was granted. The order passed by the APERC was upheld by a Bench of this Court by an order dated 08.O6.2O01 in C.M.A.No.L97I of 2OOO and other connected matters- 10. Against the aforesaid order passed by a Bench of tltis Court, a Special Leave Peti(ion was preferred. 11. The Honble Supreme

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s Pitti Laminations Ltd.,

In the result, M.A.C.A.No

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

21(OLD NO 10) PYCROFTS GARDEN ROAD, CHENNAI 600006 BY ADV SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN RESPONDENT/APPELLANT: NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., KOLLANNUR BUILDING, PALACE ROAD, THRISSUR BY ADV SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH THIS CROSS OBJECTION/CROSS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.10.2021, ALONG WITH MACA.821/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A.No.821/2012& C.O.No.95/2012 -:3:- Dated this the 11th