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 :-

III, KOLKATA BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI AND 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

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

1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX JSS TOWERS BSK III STAGE BANGALORE. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE - 11(2) JSS TOWERS BSK III STAGE BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI.K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND: M/S HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY COMPAQ COMPUTERS INDIA P. LTD.) NO.24, SALARPURIA ARENA HOSUR MAIN ROAD ADUGODI BANGALORE - 560 030. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI.T.SURYANARAYANA

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1(3), MANGALORE …APPELLANTS (BY MR.SANMATHI E I, ADV.) AND: M/S. ACADEMY OF LIBERAL EDUCATION, KURANJIBAGH, SULLIA-574 327, PAN AAATA 2239B …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.S.PARTHASARATHI & SMT.SHEETAL BORKAR, ADVS.) Date of Judgment 14-08-2018 I.T.A.No.346/2015 Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s Academy of Liberal Education 2/21 THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260- A OF INCOME

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

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

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 (TDS), vs. M/s Country Club Inda Limited

iii). Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the Appellant had a PE in India is perverse and contrary to the facts and material on record? (iv). Whether, without prejudice, the Tribunal erred in attributing 50% of the alleged profits to the alleged PE of the Appellant in India and whether such approach and quantification was inconsistent with Article

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

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 III vs. M/s. Sree Sree Wines

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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

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

iii. research and development costs; iv. depreciation of plant and equipment that cannot be allocated to a particular contract.” 21. The pros and cons of the CCM are discussed in para 10. Para 11.2 of AS 7 states that when a contractor uses a particular method of accounting for a contract, “then in respect of all other contracts that meet

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

iii. research and development costs; iv. depreciation of plant and equipment that cannot be allocated to a particular contract.” 21. The pros and cons of the CCM are discussed in para 10. Para 11.2 of AS 7 states that when a contractor uses a particular method of accounting for a contract, “then in respect of all other contracts that meet

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri P.Sarveswara Rao

Appeals are partly allowed, in view of the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

iii) The Taj Trapezium Area 1. The district of Agra (excluding Taj Trapezium Area) Aligarh (excluding Taj Trapezium area) Allahabad (excluding the area in south of Rivers Jamuna & Confluent Ganga but including the area included under Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad) Bareilly, Bijore, Firozabad (Taj Trapezium Area) Ghaziabad, Gorakhpur, Haridwar, Kanpur (Nagar), Lakhmpur-Kheri, Lucknow, Maharajganj, Meerut, Mirzapur, Muzzaffarnagar, Saharanpur, Sonbhadra

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

In the result we do not find any merit in the appeal

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

1), BANGALORE ... APPELLANTS (By Sri.E.I.SANMATHI, ADV.,) AND: M/S NCR CORPORATION PVT LTD 11, 3RD FLOOR, NITON BUILDING, PALACE ROAD,BANGALORE42 ... RESPONDENT (By Sri.T.SURYANARAYANA, ADV.) - - - THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 28.02.2011 PASSED IN ITA NO.353/BANG/2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 2003-04, PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT

Som Bhupal vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

1. These appeals by the Revenue are against the common order dated 5th January, 2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA Nos. 3501 & 2981/Del/2003 for Assessment Years (‘AY’s) 2000-2001 and ITA Nos. 3502 & 2982/Del/2003 for AY’s 2001-02. 2. By the order dated 25th May, 2006, this Court framed the following question

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Margadarshi Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd.,

The appeal is dismissed

32,186/-, which was processed and proceedings under Section 143 (2) of Act 1961 were conducted. The assessment was completed under Section 143 (3) for the assessment year 2007-2008 on 07.09.2009 (A-2). On 29.11.2010, the proceedings GAURAV ARORA 2023.04.03 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/document P&H HC, Chandigarh

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

iii) Whether the amount of Rs.1,25,12,348/- claimed as quality loss paid by the assessee to M/s. Apollo Tyres Limited is liable to be deducted? 3. The assessee is a tyre manufacturing company, earlier known as Premier Tyres Ltd. and later renamed as M/s.PTL. It was incorporated on 29.10.1959 with the object of carrying on the business

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

iii) Whether the amount of Rs.1,25,12,348/- claimed as quality loss paid by the assessee to M/s. Apollo Tyres Limited is liable to be deducted? 3. The assessee is a tyre manufacturing company, earlier known as Premier Tyres Ltd. and later renamed as M/s.PTL. It was incorporated on 29.10.1959 with the object of carrying on the business