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 on certain assets owned wholly or partly by an assessee and used for the purpose of business or profession, as may be prescribed. Rule 5(1) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 provides that subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), the allowance under clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 32

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. The relevant extract of Section 32(1) of the Act, reads as under: 32(1) In respect of depreciation

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. The court rejected the argument on behalf of the revenue that section 32 of the Income Tax Act was the only section granting benefit of deduction on account of depreciation

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

32 for the same or any subsequent previous year." 13. The language of the sub-clause 'c' to Section 35(2B) is conspicuous and entirely different and wordings are clear and lucid. The language of Section 11(1), as noticed above, is distinguished and not worded in a similar manner. In Escorts Ltd. (supra), the SupremeCourt was consideringthe said specific

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

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 205 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), are applicable. (2) Nothing contained in sub-section (l) sha.ll a-ffect the determination

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-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

1 lakh, he withdrew Rs. 77,000/- in 3 installments upto 23.09.1996 and there was no repayment of loan till 23.09.1996. 32. PW-21, Madan Ramrath is the employee of the Central Bank, Dhamtari had proved the document Ex.P/75 and Ex.P/76 by which the ledger of the bank 10 account of the appellant has been proved. He gave details

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

32 l.A. NO: 2 OF 2005(WAMP. NO: 1223 OF 20!s) 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 suspend the judgment under appeal pending the disposal of the above W.A. Counsel for the Appellants: SRI R.VINOD REDDY, 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 4,07,88,644 1

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mohan Milk LIne Pvt Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

depreciation unavailed under Section 32(1)(iia) in the previous year ending on 31.03.2008, whether could be allowed I.T.A. No.166/2014

The Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. Harmahendar Singh Bagga

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

depreciation unavailed under Section 32(1)(iia) in the previous year ending on 31.03.2009, whether could be allowed I.T.A. No.184/2015

The Commissioner of Income tax III vs. M/s. Sree Sree Wines

Accordingly, the appeal (ITAT/75/2010) stands dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on block of assets on which 100% depreciation has been prescribed

The Comissioner of Income Tax III, vs. Smt. Shanti Singh,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

32: [Provided that in Chapter VI-A for the p effect shall be given losses under Chapter under sub-section (2) o -4- ax for any previous year falling iod; for filing a return of income has of income has been filed, as nil, under clause (c);] ear has not ended or the date of ncome under sub-section (1

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. SOMA ENTERPRISES LTD

The appeal is disposed off accordingly

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

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 and served on the assessee on 23.08.2007. In response to the same, the Internal Auditor has appeared and represented the case and produced various documents

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultral Market Committee,

Appeal is dismissed

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

1. The present appeal is preferred under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short ‘Act 1944’) for quashing impugned order dated 25.01.2011 (Annexure A-3), whereby, the learned Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the appellant holding that the appellant is not entitled to benefit of CENVAT Credit. 2. The brief facts of the case, as per Order

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

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