COMM.OF INCOMETAX AP I HYD vs. M/S.DIAMOND HATCHERIES P.LTD HYD

Section 80HH is to be calculated on net income after deduction of depreciation, investment allowance etc. The Hon'ble High Court followed its decision reported in 218 ITR 71. The said decision was also followed in the case reported in 225 ITR 374. We may further refer to the decision of the Hon'be Supreme Court in the case

The Commissioner of Income Tax -V, vs. M/S Secunderabad Club

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

26,93,63,940/-; it had claimed deduction under Section 80-IB of the Act at ₹ 77,89,40,725/ The assessee manufactures mosquito repellants and has also traded, during the year in aerosols, oil spray, hand pumps, mats and coils. It had claimed deduction u/s 80-IB in respect of three units. The AO stated, in the impugned notice

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. Hetero Labs Ltd

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

26- 02-2013 AND ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29-12-2009 AND SUITABLY MODIFY IT AS SOUGHT IN THE APPEAL. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the assessee

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

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

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

26. In Sau ashtra Kutch Stock Exchange ..td.'r; case (supra) the fa:ts; belore the Supreme Court wr:re thal while deciding the appeai by the Tribuna,l, the decir;ion of the jurisdictional High Court i.e., High Court of Ciutarat was not brought to the notice of the Tribr-rnal Assessee contended tl at there u,as thus

AP. STATE SEEDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, HYD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, HYD.

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

26. From this, it has claimed a prior period adjustment of Rs.3,09,504. This being the treatment glen by the assessee as per Part II and III of Schedule Vl of the Companies Act, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee's case is squareiy covered by the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Apollo

Shri Maneklal Agarwal vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are allowed and

Bench: A RAMALINGESWARA RAO,DILIP B. BHOSALE

depreciation of value of property or even stabilization of property prices during the last three decades. 20 CFA Nos. 1/2005 & 2/2005 26. In these circumstances, grant of decree of specific performance in favour of the respondent when he has paid only a paltry sum of Rs.100 lacs to the appellants and has defaulted in payment of Rs.1.50 lacs within

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

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. M/S QUALITY CARE INDIA LTD

Bench: A.SHANKAR NARAYANA,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

26,01,000/- had been charged to P & L account as an extraordinary item. 6. After reopening, the Assessing Officer passed an order on 26.12.2011. The assessee filed a statutory appeal before the CIT (Appeals). The appeal was allowed, holding that the rationale behind the issue of notice under Section 148 and the basis for reopening the assessment

Commissioner of Income Tax [TDS] vs. The Executive Engineer

In the result, these appeals fail and are

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SEETHARAMA MURTI

section 115 JB of Act? 8. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in allowing the relief with regard to losses which were due to operational mistakes, related mainly to ATM transactions of customer and that loss is essential capital loss incurred for operational purposes? 9. Whether on the facts

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III, vs. M/S. SAVIJANA SEA FOODS PVT. LTD.,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟) of which 1 is by the Assessee and 10 are by the Revenue. Apart from the facts being similar, the questions of law too are common to many of the appeals. They are accordingly disposed of by this common judgment. Background facts 2. The Assessee is engaged to the business

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Kokivenkateswara Reddy AND others,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟) of which 1 is by the Assessee and 10 are by the Revenue. Apart from the facts being similar, the questions of law too are common to many of the appeals. They are accordingly disposed of by this common judgment. Background facts 2. The Assessee is engaged to the business

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

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Ch.Veeraju AND co.

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