Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur. vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Narasaraopet.

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act in respect of intangible assets of Rs.9,07,25,000/- when

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Dr. T.Ravi Kumar,

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 10Th April, 2024. Appearance: Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjay Bhowmick, Advocate Ms. Swapna Das, Advocate … For The Appellant. Ms. Smita Das De, Advocate … For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Sanjay Bhowmick, Learned Counsel For The Appellant/Assessee & Ms. Smita Das De, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Respondent. 2. The Assessment Years Involved In The Present Appeal Are Assessment Year 1999-2000 & Assessment Year 2000-01. By Order Dated 16.08.2012, This Appeal Was Admitted On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law :-

Section 32 of the Act, 1961 read with Rule 5 of the Rules, 1962 does not prohibit allowing of depreciation for the whole of the previous year where asset has been used for the purposes of business or profession by the assessee at any time during that previous year. Lesser depreciation is allowable where the asset has been acquired during

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

25,79,639/- instead of 6,35,492/- “Based on the above mistake, the appellant also intimated to the AO the consequences of such clerical mistake by stating that net impact due to the mistake will be that the depreciation claim for energy saving devices in the computation statement Rs. 83,93,24,100/- will be reduced

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, HYDERABAD vs. M/s. Sri Ramanjaneya Poultry Farm Private Limited,

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), against the order dated 26.04.2006 in I.T.A. No.828/Hyd/2004 on the file of the Income Tax Tribunal, Hyderabad. 02. The following substantial question of law was raised in this appeal for consideration. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in directing

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, HYDERABAD vs. M/s. Sri Ramanjaneya Poultry Farm Private Limited

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), against the order dated 26.04.2006 in I.T.A. No.827/Hyd/2004 on the file of the Income Tax Tribunal, Hyderabad. 02. The following substantial question of law was raised in this appeal for consideration. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in directing

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultral Market Committee,

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

depreciation under Section 32 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961).” 11. The admitted fact on record is that the appellant availed CENVAT Credit on capital goods to the tune of `6,36,381 in the year 2001-02 and `2,25

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri P.Sarveswara Rao

Appeals are partly allowed, in view of the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

25 of the UP Sales Tax Rules, certain exemption of sales-tax was granted to the industries set up in the specified backward area. Bhushan’s galvanizing unit started production in January 1994, the eligibility certificate in respect of this unit was issued by the Industries Department effective from 19.01.1994. The exemption in terms of the notification dated ITA 315/2003

The Commissioner of Income Tax-V vs. Smt.R.Amala Devi

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

depreciation of assets in dispute. It is argued that the explanation of assessee that he had previously acquired the assets on hire basis in order to run the business smoothly and to save cost, which were later on acquired by the ITA No.15/2009 6 assessee was rightly not accepted by the Assessing Officer as also by both the appellate authorities

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

depreciation. The rate of minimum tax was kept at a modest figure deeming 30 per cent of book profits as total income. This modest amount is likely to go down further with the downward revision of corporate tax rate to 35 per cent and abolition of surcharge. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 45.4 The Act also inserts a new section 115JAA

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

In the result we do not find any merit in the appeal

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

depreciation to the extent of 25%. Being aggrieved, 6 the assessee preferred an appeal. The order was affirmed in appeal by the assessee 3. The assessee assailed the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by an order dated 28.02.2011 inter alia held that the expenditure incurred

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s Pokarna Limited

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

25 Provided that this condition shall not apply in respect of an [undertaking] which is formed as a result of the re-establishment, reconstruction or revival by the assessee of the business of any such [undertaking] as is referred to in section 33B in the circumstances and within the period specified in that section; (ii) it is not formed

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

Andhra PRadesh Pradesh Fibres Limited vs. Assistant commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the order passed by the

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

depreciation 8 and notional interest, which would amount to setting aside the entire order of assessment. It was further held that since, there was no order to pass a fresh order of assessment, therefore, the order giving effect to the findings of the tribunal was not barred by limitation under Section 153(2A) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid order

M/SVISWARUPA BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS P LTD/. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD/3(I) HYDERABAD

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,T.AMARNATH GOUD

25 of 2014 DATED:22-11-2017 Between: M/s. Viswarupa Builders & Developers (P) Ltd., Hyderabad … Appellant And Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1) Hyderabad … Respondent COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT: Mr. A.V.A. Siva Kartikeya COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr. B. Narasimha Sarma, Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CVNR, J & TA, J ITTA Nos.59

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Margadarshi Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd.,

The appeal is dismissed

depreciation was ordered to be charged on it. Rs.7650/- were added to the income of the assessee on account of telephone expenses, as the assessee admitted the expenditure incurred on account of telephones installed at residences. Further addition of Rs.2,00,000/- was made on account of sale of rice, as no stock was maintained by the assessee quality wise

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

25. The issue which is staring at us is rvhether the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court wl'rich had overruled its earlier tu,o decisions rvhich formed the apparent from the record is a mistake or arl error, I I I I l5 of rectilicatiot rtnder sub-section (2) of Sec:ticn

The Commissioner of Income Tax V vs. Smt. Ch. Uma

section 154? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in sustaining the order of rectification passed by the Assessing Officer on 16.10.2008 when the CIT(A) had already recorded a fining that the appellant had continued its business during the year and no mistake was apparent from record