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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

depreciation of Rs.6,30,834/-.The net addition of the difference of Rs. 18,92,500/- is therefore upheld. Grounds 3.1 to 3.3 also fail.” (emphasis supplied) 17. The Tribunal, by its order dated 8.9.2016 while considering the contention regarding the deduction claimed with regard to the expenditure incurred towards trademark has, after noticing paras

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

26 l.A. NO: 2OF 2OOS(WAMP. NO: 1714 0F 2005 PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased suspend the judgment under appeai pending the disposal of the above W'A CounselfortheAppellants:SRIR-VINODREDDY'SCFORTSTRANSCO Corns"f forthe Reipondent No.l: SRI PRASHANTH VRN FOR M/S INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent No.2

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

iii). Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the Appellant had a PE in India is perverse and contrary to the facts and material on record? (iv). Whether, without prejudice, the Tribunal erred in attributing 50% of the alleged profits to the alleged PE of the Appellant in India and whether such approach and quantification was inconsistent with Article

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

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

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 4,07,88,644 1

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

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

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri P.Sarveswara Rao

Appeals are partly allowed, in view of the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

section 4 – A of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948 (UP Act No. XV of 1948), hereinafter referred to as the Act the Governor is pleased to declare that 1(A) In respect of any goods manufactured in a „new unit, other than the units of the type mentioned in Annexure II established in the areas mentioned in Column

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

1. This order shall dispose of ITA No.49 of 2001, 200 and 187 of 2002 as according to the learned counsel for the parties, the issues involved in these appeals can be disposed of together. However, the facts are being extracted from ITA No.49 of 2001. 2. ITA No.49 of 2001 has been preferred by the appellant-assessee under Section

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 V vs. Smt. Ch. Uma

iii) Whether the amount of Rs.1,25,12,348/- claimed as quality loss paid by the assessee to M/s. Apollo Tyres Limited is liable to be deducted? 3. The assessee is a tyre manufacturing company, earlier known as Premier Tyres Ltd. and later renamed as M/s.PTL. It was incorporated on 29.10.1959 with the object of carrying on the business

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

iii) Whether the amount of Rs.1,25,12,348/- claimed as quality loss paid by the assessee to M/s. Apollo Tyres Limited is liable to be deducted? 3. The assessee is a tyre manufacturing company, earlier known as Premier Tyres Ltd. and later renamed as M/s.PTL. It was incorporated on 29.10.1959 with the object of carrying on the business

Commissioner of Income Tax - VI vs. M/s. S.P. Steels

iii) Whether the amount of Rs.1,25,12,348/- claimed as quality loss paid by the assessee to M/s. Apollo Tyres Limited is liable to be deducted? 3. The assessee is a tyre manufacturing company, earlier known as Premier Tyres Ltd. and later renamed as M/s.PTL. It was incorporated on 29.10.1959 with the object of carrying on the business

Shri Maneklal Agarwal vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are allowed and

Bench: A RAMALINGESWARA RAO,DILIP B. BHOSALE

iii) Every suit for specific performance need not be decreed merely because it is filed within the period of limitation by ignoring the time- limits stipulated in the agreement. The courts will also "frown" upon suits which are not filed immediately after the breach/refusal. The fact that limitation is three years does not mean that a purchaser can wait