Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

In the result, the appeal (ITA/70/2011) is allowed to the extent indicated

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 20Th March, 2023 Appearance : Mr. C. Bhaskaran, Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. …For The Appellant. Mr. Aryak Dutt, Adv. …For The Respondent.. The Court : - This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated September 30, 2009 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata In Ita No.2486/Kol/2007 For The Assessment Year 2003-2004. The Appeal Was Admitted On 18.03.2011 On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law:- “1. Whether The Tribunal Below, While Interpreting Section 36(1)(Viia)(A) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, Committed Substantial Error Of Law In Holding That Deduction Under The First Proviso Was Alternative To That Under Sub-Clause (A) & That No Deduction Under The First Proviso Was Allowable If Deduction Had Been Allowed Under Sub-Clause (A) Thereby Rejecting The Appellant’S

36(1)(viia)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, committed substantial error of law in holding that deduction under the first proviso was alternative to that under sub-clause (a) and that no deduction under the first proviso was allowable if deduction had been allowed under sub-clause (a) thereby rejecting the appellant’s 2 claim for deduction

The Commissioner of Income tax III, vs. Biraj Kavar Galada

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

depreciation on securities (iv) floating rate notes of London branch (v) DICGC loans (vi) suits filed accounts (vii) miscellaneous provision cannot be added back in accordance with Explanation to Section 115JA of the Act in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in H.C.L. Comnet where is diminution in the value of assets as contended by the assessee

Commissioner of IncomeTax-2, vs. Mr. Mustafa Alam Khan,

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

36. The deduction for acquisition of Trade Mark is covered by section 32. Explanation 3 to section 32(1) says that 'block of assets' shall mean inter alia, intangible assets being trade mark. In other words, the deduction for the acquisition of trade mark should be under section 32. IT rules allow depreciation

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

depreciation as revenue expense and in wrongly applying the provisions of Section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on “Purely Temporary Erections” used for less than 180 days? 3 v) Whether, the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata erred in Law in upholding the addition of Rs.21,376/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 36

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

36,458/- under Section 115JB of the Act. The Assessing Officer in the assessment order has recorded that the assessee had debited a sum of Rs.31,54,844/- in the computation of income as deferred revenue expense and 10% of the said amount was debited to the profit and loss account as deferred revenue expenditure. The assessee was accordingly asked

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 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

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

36(1)(viia) of the Act when the provisions of this Section does not permit such an action? iv. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal preferred by the revenue by holding that the depreciation

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultral Market Committee,

Appeal is dismissed

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

depreciation under Section 32 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961).” 11. The admitted fact on record is that the appellant availed CENVAT Credit on capital goods to the tune of `6,36

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

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 and books of account for verification. 4. On the question of depreciation, the Trust had claimed deduction towards depreciation allowance 4 amounting to Rs.8,41,36

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s Matrix Power Pvt Ltd.,

36). ITA 386/2013 Page 7 7. Counsel for the assessee argued that the impugned judgment of the ITAT is sound and should not be upset. He relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Galaxy Surfactants (supra) and submitted that the previous ruling in Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (supra) also ruled that Section 10B is in the nature

PROGREESIVE CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

depreciation on tmc[s. Thereafter, uide the assessmenr order dated 31.03.1997 passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 1a8(sz;) o[ the Act, assessing officer computed t zol trn ltz 5 the total incor,re of the assessee at Rs.2,16,89,170.00. Flowever, after adjustmerrt of the refund for earlier assessment y3ars, the amount payabl,: bythe assessee

The Commissioner of income Tax-II vs. M/s.Ideal Industrial Explosives Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

36(ii) (viia) while calculating the book profit under section 115JA in accordance with law?” In fact, the specific stand of the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Revenue in the statutory appeal was that ITAs3/2010 & conns. -16 in computing minimum alternate tax payable under Section 115JA, the provision for bad and doubtful debts has to be added back under clause

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

depreciation of section 32;] g s f f s n d e r h n n d l e f r f r d n VARINDER SINGH 2024.11.14 14:36

Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) vs. M/s. Yashoda Super Speciality Hospital

In the result, the appeal fails

depreciation of Assessment Years 1988-89 and 1989-90 amounting Rs.72,02,83,028/-, the income was determined to be ‘NIL’. The Commissioner in exercise of powers under Section 263 of the Act vide order dated 12.11.2007 held that the order of assessment dated 26.12.2012 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and consequently set aside the same

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

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

section 2 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (36 of 2003), whether or not such transfer is in pursuance of the splitting up or reconstruction or reorganization of the Board under Part XIII of that Act.] Explanation 1.-For the purposes of clause (ii), any machinery or plant which was used outside India by any person other than the assessee shall

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