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

31. PW-20, Abdul Habib is the Manager (Legal), LIC, Raipur who proved the loan sanction letter Ex.P/54 by which the appellant was sanction loan of Rs. 1 lakh for construction of the house. Out of the loan of Rs. 1 lakh, he withdrew Rs. 77,000/- in 3 installments upto 23.09.1996 and there was no repayment of loan till

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

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. Nekkanti Sea Foods Limited

The appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

depreciation was not allowed. 5. The CIT (Appeals) affirmed the aforesaid findings given by the Assessing Officer. 6. In the second appeal before the tribunal, it has been held that the expenditure incurred was a revenue expense and should be allowed. ITA 160/2012 Page 3 of 10 7. It is an undisputed fact that the respondent-assessee had entered into

Commissioner of Inccome Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 16Th March, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Smarajit Roychowdhury, Adv. ...For The Appellant. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjoy Bhowmick, Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. ...For The Respondent. The Court : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’ For Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30Th November, 2010 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Kolkata (The Tribunal) In Ita No.368 & 369/Kol/2010 Years 2005- 06 & 2006-07. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration:

depreciation of rolls prior to 4 30th September, 1991 as 100% and thereafter at 50%, so it to be assumed that the expenditure should be treated as capital expenditure. This aspect was also considered in the case of Malhotra Industrial Corporation taking note of the decision of the High Court of Karnataka in the case of Mysore Spun Concrete Pipe

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

1.-For the purposes of clause (ii), any machinery or plant which was used outside India by any person other than the assessee shall not be regarded as machinery or plant previously used for any purpose, if the following conditions are fulfilled, namely.- - - 26 (a) such machinery or plant was not, at any time previous to the date

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

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

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 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

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

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

The appeal is partly allowed

1. In both these appeals, the assessee is the same and the questions of law are common. Hence, they are decided by this common judgment. 2. In Tax Appeal No.382/2000 filed u/s.260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenge is to the judgment and order dated 07.04.2000 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench in ITA No.4603/AHD/1994 whereas

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

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

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri P.Sarveswara Rao

Appeals are partly allowed, in view of the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

section 4 – A of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948 (UP Act No. XV of 1948), hereinafter referred to as the Act the Governor is pleased to declare that 1(A) In respect of any goods manufactured in a „new unit, other than the units of the type mentioned in Annexure II established in the areas mentioned in Column

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

1. This order shall dispose of ITA No.49 of 2001, 200 and 187 of 2002 as according to the learned counsel for the parties, the issues involved in these appeals can be disposed of together. However, the facts are being extracted from ITA No.49 of 2001. 2. ITA No.49 of 2001 has been preferred by the appellant-assessee under Section

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

1) of the Act. I.T.A. No.193/12 & Conn. Cases -:20:- 21. There is nothing on record to indicate that there is any element of compensation involved. Even after granting opportunities to the assessee to show the existence of any compensatory element in the penalty, the assessee could not show the existence of such an element in the penalty. In fact

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Ch.Veeraju AND co.

1) of the Act. I.T.A. No.193/12 & Conn. Cases -:20:- 21. There is nothing on record to indicate that there is any element of compensation involved. Even after granting opportunities to the assessee to show the existence of any compensatory element in the penalty, the assessee could not show the existence of such an element in the penalty. In fact