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 :-

depreciation was also claimed as per Section 32 of the Act, 1961 read with Rule 5 of the Rules. No assessment order was passed by the assessing officer on the basis of returns filed by the assessee. Instead, the assessing officer issued notice under Section 148 and passed an “assessment order” dated 16.12.2002 under Section 143(3) r.w.s

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

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. Facts

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

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

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Ascend Telecom Infrastructure Private Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

3. This Court in case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Pune v. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona’ [2018] 89 taxmann.com 127 [SC] with regard to allowability and Depreciation in the hands of Religious and Charitable Trust held as under: “5. Learned Counsel at the Bar submitted that so far as the issue regarding claim of Depreciation under Section

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

Bench: A.SHANKAR NARAYANA,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

3], before the Madras High Court, the assessee had furnished details regarding the acquisition of various machineries and assets and the details regarding leasing out of those machineries together with the lease rent received as well as computation of depreciation, but an attempt to reopen the assessment was made on the ground that depreciation was claimed and allowed

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

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

3 of 96 C/TAXAP/627/2015 JUDGMENT level agencies viz. Collector, GIDC, AMC, GPCB, MOEF, etc. Certified copies of approval u/s.12AA, 80(G) and both the copies of Memorandum & Articles of Association (commercial & section 25) are enclosed herewith as per Annexure-1 (Pages A1 to A60).” 5. The assessee also pointed out the objects of the company as incorporated

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

3. The Assessee filed its return of income on 31.10.2006 admitting a total income of Rs.nil. The return of Income was processed under Section 143(1) by the Income Tax Officer, Mandya. The case was selected for scrutiny in accordance with the scrutiny guidelines issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Notice under Section 143(2) was issued

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

3 TAX, CIRCLE-1, UDUPI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC. THESE I.T.As. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT These appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) have been filed by the revenue. ITA No.97/2010 was admitted

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.3,43,28,658/- being 5% thereof

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

3 ―4.5 Thus, it may be seen that the provisions of clause (ii) of sub- section (6) of Section 10B provide for carry forward and set off of losses pertaining to the 100% export oriented units eligible for deduction under the said section. Therefore, if what the ld. Counsel (for the Assessee) is arguing is to be accepted, then

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

3. The contention ofRevenue isthat depreciation allowed on capital assets cannot be treated as application of income under the said clause. In case depreciation was allowed and treated as application of income, then the assessee would be entitled to double deduction as purchase or acquisition of capital assets for consideration was also treated as application of income

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

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section

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

depreciation loss of Rs. 116,70,45,911/-, which in the order section 143(3) was determined at depreciation

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