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 Income Tax Act, 1961 depreciation allowance in respect of hotel assets used for the purpose of the business can be reduced in any manner because of temporary closure of the hotel for part of the year and the purported findings of the Tribunal restricting the allowance to 50% is arbitrary, unreasonable and perverse ? Facts:- Facts

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

28. The following income shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession",— - - 21 (i) the profits and gains of any business or profession which was carried on by the assessee at any time during the previous year ; …………… …………… 12. Section 56 of the Act deals with Income from other sources which reads

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

section 143(3) was determined at depreciation loss of Rs. 114,47,28,440/-. The same was subsequently revised under

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

depreciated. In other words, Rs.60,000/- is to be treated as application of money for the purpose of clause 'a' to Section v.. V 11(1). 6. Initially we were inclined to accept the submission raised by the Revenue that there are several good reasons why we have declined to interfere and refer the matter to a larger bench

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

depreciation actually allowed to him under this Act, or under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or any Act repealed by that Act, or under any executive orders issued when the Indian Income-tax Act, 1886 (2 of 1886), was in force: 10 (c)in the case of any block of assets,- (i)in respect

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultral Market Committee,

Appeal is dismissed

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

Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in their Income Tax returns for the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04 and the benefit of said depreciation was never surrendered by them as they had neither filed the revised Income Tax returns for the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003- 04 nor they had discharged the liability of additional

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri P.Sarveswara Rao

Appeals are partly allowed, in view of the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

28. In the Bhushan Steel batch of appeals, another question of law, i.e. whether the assessee was entitled to claim depreciation under Section

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

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

28 of the Act postulates that profit and gains of business or profession carried out at any time during the previous year, shall be taxed under the head “profits and gains of business or profession". 9. Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Samsung India Electronics Ltd. (ITA 131/2010) decided on July 9, 2013, had held as under

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. SOMA ENTERPRISES LTD

The appeal is disposed off accordingly

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

28 and held that the depreciation is to be deducted, to arrive at an income available to charitable or religious purposes. 7. So far as Section

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax vs. D.L.V. Sridhar

Bench: D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

Depreciation claim of 50:50 ratio also appeared to him to be disproportionate and without any cogent basis. As regard Bad Debts claim also, as written off & reflected in the unallocated segment, the AO observed that the said amount represented the Date of the previous years, pertaining to its software operations and therefore, bad debt should have been allocated

COMM OF INCOME TAX, HYD vs. M/S. BALAN NATURAL FOOD PRIVATE LTD., HYD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

depreciation claimed on securities classified as ‘Held to Maturity’ and further held that the assessee had earned aggregate sum of Rs.68,65,73,177/-, which is exempt under various sub-Sections of Section 10 of the Act and disallowed the aforesaid amount in terms of Section 14A of the Act. A sum of Rs.3,43,28

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

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

28,964 5,64,22,221 3,97,33,149 Expenditure Operating Expenses 2,97,86,327 2,92,31,480 3,10,33,514 1,62,44,044 Administrative & General Expenses 75,90,435 72,16,710 59,16,501 75,94,422 Interest & Financial Charges 1,80,438 7198 5,95,460 10,16,946 Depreciation

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

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-V vs. Smt.R.Amala Devi

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 144 of the Act only in cases of the contractors whose gross contractual receipts exceed rupees one crore and if total profit declared was less than 5% of gross contractual receipts. 6. It is submitted that the profit of the appellant for the accounting year in question was only Rs.7,92,508/-, which, in any case, was more than

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

28. A Di. ision Bench of this C ourt in / B.V.K.Seshav ltaram's case was confronterl rvitlr a similar situation. Ir that case, this Court was exatninirLg the provision of lection 154 of the Act. As strlrrnitted lty learned coun iel for the appellant, Section 154 of tl-re Act provides for rr:ctification of mistake