The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s Matrix Power Pvt Ltd.,

29,769/- from the Chopanki Unit was not allowed to be set off from the income of other units. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereafter “CIT (A)”). The CIT(A) confirmed the AO’s position and findings holding that: ITA 386/2013 Page 3 ―4.5 Thus, it may be seen that

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri P.Sarveswara Rao

Appeals are partly allowed, in view of the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, despite not owning the property or not being the owner and being a lessee during the years under consideration, arises for consideration. 29

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 (Central) vs. Hetero Labs Ltd

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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 subject matter of the appeal pertains

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

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

29,45,33,370/-. These expenses have to apportion according W.P.(C) 422/2006, 2794/2008, 2795/2008 & 8177/2008 Page 4 of 10 to sales which has not been done resulting in excess claim of deduction in certain units and increased loss in certain units. The total sales of all units have been declared at ₹ 246,11,90,504/- (c) Besides, there were

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

29,20,496/- for the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89 respectively which was calculated by the appellant as per the provisions of law as both the deductions were independent claims. The Assessing Officer allowed claim under Section 32AB of the Act but allowed deduction under Section 80I of the Act amounting

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

29 .A. NO: 2 OF 2005 WAMP. NO: 1719 OF 2005 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Judgment under appeal pending the disposal of the above W.A. Counsel for the Appellants: SRI R.VINOD REODY, SC FOR TSTRANSCO

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

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 Pokarna Limited

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

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

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

depreciation allowancc to the l8 assessees. Based upon the said Supreme Court decision, rectification orders were passed by the successor assessing authority. Whether a subsequent decision can be the basis for "rectifying" a.:n ea.rlier order in exercise of the powers under section 154 of the lncome-ta-x Act? Although the opening words of section 154(l) - "with

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 [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 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

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

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

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of the injuries that he sustained in an accident on 11.03.2001. He contended that, while he was travelling as a passenger in an auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KL-8/2064 through the Ayyanthole Civil Line Quarters Road, when the auto rickshaw reached the road junction, a car bearing