COMR. OF IT HYD vs. M/S NEERAJ PETRO CHEMICALS LTD HYD

The appeal is partly allowed

depreciation in respect of guest house maintained by the assessee? (C) Whether misc. income amounting to Rs.577.48 Lacs and processing charges amounting to Rs.171.37 lacs, being part and parcel of assessee’s business income and required to be included in the total turnover, the Tribunal was justified in excluding the same for the purposes of computation of deduction u/s.80HHC

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 5 vs. M/s Vijay Textiles Limited

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

31) of the Act has obviated the requirement for having, production of income, profits or gains, as an essential object for forming an AOP. However the CBDT Circular explaining the above insertion states that such insertion was only to take care of the claim of certain bodies that they did not fall within the definition of a ‘person

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

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 1,05,72,696 1,10,86,334 1,26,18,427 1,39,66,450 Total Expenditure

PROGREESIVE CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

31-03-1997 in PAN/GIR No. P-2. Between: Progreesive Constructions Limited, Represented Managing Director 7th Floor, "Raghava" North Block, Abids, HYDERABAD. by K. Bhaskara Rao, R.R. Towers, C.A. Lane, ...APPELLANT Jt. Commissioner of income tax, Jt. Commissioner of lncome Tax Special Range - 3, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT AND Counsel for the Appellant : SRI CHALLA GUNARANJAN Counsel for the Respondents

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

31 ITD 117 wherein the provisions of sections 80AB and Section 80HH were considered. The Tribunal observed that Section 80HH is made subject to the provision of Section 80AB and does not operate in isolation or independent of that section. The Tribunal also observed that it has been clarified by categorical provisions made in section 80AB that the deduction should

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri P.Sarveswara Rao

Appeals are partly allowed, in view of the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

depreciation and not the grant of deduction in respect of Sales-tax collections which had not been paid in accordance with the provisions of sec.43-B of the IT Act. (e) No objection on the issue whether the assessee‟s industrial undertaking was set up in a backward area, notified by the Central Govt. for the purpose of benefit under provisions

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

31-03-2002 should have been deducted? 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of generation of power. According to the assessee, it continuously ran into losses since its inception and borrowed an amount from Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency (IREDA). However, the assessee neither repaid

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

INCOME TAX BANGALORE vs. SHALINI BHUPAL

Appeal is dismissed

31-03-1989, relevant for the assessment year 1989-90, the return of income was filed by the respondent-assessee declaring Rs.53,93,390/- as income. The assessee manufactured and sold rubber patches for tyre, tubes, uniseals etc. By order dated 13-03-1992 the Assessing Officer inter alia held that deduction under Section 80-I could be allowed

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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

31, Urdugalli, Pathergafti, Hyderabad 500 002 rep by its Managing Director Sri Kantilal Agarwal. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS l.A. NO: 1 OF 2004(WAMP. NO:3911 0F 2004) 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 Direct the respondent 1 to 3 not to disconnect

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

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

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 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

depreciation, reserves, etc., a part of it should in all fairness go to the employees.” 30. In the said case the Supreme Court was considering whether payment for ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 17 of 36 the extra services rendered by an employee could be allowed as business expenditure. It was held that for the purposes of allowing commercial

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Kokivenkateswara Reddy AND others,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

depreciation, reserves, etc., a part of it should in all fairness go to the employees.” 30. In the said case the Supreme Court was considering whether payment for ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 17 of 36 the extra services rendered by an employee could be allowed as business expenditure. It was held that for the purposes of allowing commercial

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 Commissioner of Income Tax V vs. Smt. Ch. Uma

section 154? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in sustaining the order of rectification passed by the Assessing Officer on 16.10.2008 when the CIT(A) had already recorded a fining that the appellant had continued its business during the year and no mistake was apparent from record