The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s.Mold-Tek Technologies Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

3 of 24 C/TAXAP/273/2011                                                                                                 JUDGMENT fact that the said organization was collecting rent for providing the space at trade, fair and exhibitions and though was receiving income by way of sale of tickets and income from tickets and sale in Pragati Maidan etc., after considering the various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as decisions

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

3. All the appeals are in respect of assessment years prior to the amendments to Explanation 1 after section 234B(1) and to the Explanation after section 234C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ―the said Act‖) by virtue of the Finance Act, 2006, w.e.f. 01.04.2007. According to the learned counsel for the appellant/revenue, after

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

3) of Section SOHHD, as the case may be; or (iv) the amo rnt of the loss or the amount of depreciation which woul l be required to be set off against the profit I / 8 of the relevant previous year as if the provisions of clause (b) of the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

3. The assessee Company filed its return of income for assessment year 2005-06 on 31.10.2005 declaring a total income of Rs. NIL and paid taxes under Section 115JB of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (for short, hereinafter referred to as `the Act’). The same was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act on 28.08.2006. The case was selected

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, vs. Mars TelecomSystems (P) Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of the failure on the part

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 :-

2) Whether on a true and proper interpretation of the provisions of 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 Commissioner of Income Tax-V vs. Smt.R.Amala Devi

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

3 year 2006-07 as contained in Clause 2(q) thereof. The Assessing Officer made an aggregate addition of Rs.20,28,885/- as unexplained income on the ground that plant and machinery shown in the balance sheet on 31st March, 2004 was to the tune of Rs.21,58,400/- whereas the same was shown as on 1st April

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III, HYD vs. M/S. SUJANA METALS LTD, HYD

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

depreciation is prescribed”. 8. It can also be said that the „right to carry on any business‟ has been recognized by the legislature as capital asset for the purposes of assessing and computing the capital gains as is clear from the reading of Section 55 (2) (a) of the Act, which is in the following terms:- (2) For the purposes

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Smt.Anitha Sanghi

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-1, UDUPI. ... APPELLANTS (By Sri.K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.) AND: SYNDICATE BANK HEAD OFFICE ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT TAX CELL, P.B.NO.1 MANIPAL. ... RESPONDENT (By Sri.T.SURYANARAYANA, ADV.) - - - THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 9/10/2009 PASSED IN ITA No.1282/BANG/2007, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-2001, PRAYING

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 16 of the Reforms Act, was granted. The order passed by the APERC was upheld by a Bench of this Court by an order dated 08.O6.2O01 in C.M.A.No.L97I of 2OOO and other connected matters- 10. Against the aforesaid order passed by a Bench of tltis Court, a Special Leave Peti(ion was preferred. 11. The Honble Supreme

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 IV vs. M/s Matrix Power Pvt Ltd.,

3) to (6) of sub-section 10B, more particularly, clause (ii) of sub-section (6) and ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court and ITAT, Chennai, the losses of eligible units are to be set off against the profits of such eligible units in the subsequent years.‖ ITA 386/2013 Page 4 5. The ITAT, which 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

3) of the Act 5 and not under Section 153(2A) of the Act as held by the Tribunal? 2. For the facility of reference, facts from ITA No.370/2011 are being referred to. The assessee is a manufacturer, seller and trader in pharmaceuticals. The assessee filed the return of income for Assessment year 1996-97 declaring the total income

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

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

3 to section 32(1) says that 'block of assets' shall mean inter alia, intangible assets being trade mark. In other words, the deduction for the acquisition of trade mark should be under section 32. IT rules allow depreciation @ 25% on 'intangible assets'. Therefore deduction can be allowed on trademarks (which is intangible asset according to section 32) only under

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 the same is not identical, and is based on adhoc estimate basis and not on actual cost as per Section 3 43(1) of the Act? 2

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

2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant denied the charge and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove the charge against the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 36 witnesses. The statement of the accused appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has also been recorded in which he denied the circumstances appears against him, plead

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Praga Tools Limited

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,N.RAVI SHANKAR

Depreciation of nditure on R&D u/s 35(2) of revenue expenses on scientific 36,344/- to the Baddi Unit or ion u/s 80IC, when the assessee n e ) o e d e ) C g g f f c r e RAJESH KUMAR 2024.07.29 12:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court