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

Section 32(1) of the Act, reads as under: 32(1) In respect of depreciation of - (i) buildings, machinery, plant or furniture, being intangible assets; (ii

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

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

ii) of sub-section (1)] of section 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

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

ii)l attributable to the business, the profits lrorn which are eligible for deduction under Section 80lHC or Section 80HHD; so, however, that such amou rts are computed in the manner specified in sub-section (3) or sub-section (3A) of Section SOHHC or sub-section (3) of Section SOHHD, as the case

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

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mohan Milk LIne Pvt Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

depreciation has to be allowed in the subsequent year" and is not the above finding against law and perverse? 2. Whether, on the Tribunal is right in law in holding that "the second proviso to section 32(1)(ii

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

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

depreciation has to be allowed in the subsequent year" and is not the above finding against law and perverse? 2. Whether, on the Tribunal is right in law in holding that "the second proviso to section 32(1)(ii

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

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. Sree Sree Wines

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

ii) Whether, the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata ought not to reject the cross- objections filed by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2005-06? iii) Whether, the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata erred in Law in restoring the order of the Assessing Officer in applying the provisions of the second proviso to Section

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

32,000/- 40% of professional charges paid to doctors through bearer cheques (60% paid by A/c. payee cheques) without deducting TDS cannot be disallowed u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act as the provisions of Section 11 of the Act was applicable to the assessee? ii. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that professional fee of Rs.45

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

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 Income Tax vs. Sri P.Sarveswara Rao

Appeals are partly allowed, in view of the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

II, which has undertaken expansion, diversification or modernization‟ on or after April 1, 1990 but not later than March 31, 1995, in the areas mentioned in Column 2 of Annexure I, not tax shall be payable or, as the case may be, the tax shall be payable at the reduced rates specified in Column 4 of Annexure

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