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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

iii. the Tribunal was right in sustaining the 1st Respondent’s action in disallowing the claim for deduction under Section 80JJAA of the Act in respect of permanent employees solely on the ground that they were employed for less than 300 days during the relevant previous years despite the fact that they had been employed for periods much longer than

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

36 l.A. NO: 1 OF 2005(WAMP. NO: 2371 OF 2005) Petition under Section 1 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the judgment under appeal pending the disposal of the above W.A. Counsel for the Appellants: SRI VENKAT CHALLA

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

iii) of sub-section (4)] or generates power or commences transmission or distribution of power [or undertakes substantial renovation and modernization of the existing transmission or distribution line..: [Provided that where the assessee develops or operates and maintains or develops, operates and maintains any infrastructure facility referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) of the Explanation

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

III at RTO, Raipur have proved the registration certificate of the motorcycle Ex.P/62 and letter Ex.P/63. 35. PW-24 J.R. Jimwale is the Assistant Administrative Officer LIC, Dhamtari has also proved the insurance policies of appellant as well as his wife and the document Ex.P/67, Ex.P/68 and Ex.P/69. 36. PW-25 Radheshyam Pawar is the Assistant (Legal Cell), Municipal Council

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 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

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. Biraj Kavar Galada

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1)(vii) read with Section 36(2)(i) of the Act which contemplated treating the said amount as income of the 4 assessee especially when the same had not been written off as bad debts and the RBI guidelines could not prevail over the statutory provisions of the Act? 2. ITA No.100/2010 has also been filed by the revenue, which

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

Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟) of which 1 is by the Assessee and 10 are by the Revenue. Apart from the facts being similar, the questions of law too are common to many of the appeals. They are accordingly disposed of by this common judgment. Background facts 2. The Assessee is engaged to the business

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 has been prescribed and thus disallowing 50% depreciation on “Purely Temporary Erections

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟) of which 1 is by the Assessee and 10 are by the Revenue. Apart from the facts being similar, the questions of law too are common to many of the appeals. They are accordingly disposed of by this common judgment. Background facts 2. The Assessee is engaged to the business

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

iii. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in deleting the addition representing excess claim of bad debts written off under Section- 36(1)(vii) of the Act, exceeding the credit balance of the provision made under Section- 36(1)(viia) of the Act when the provisions of this Section does

INCOME TAX BANGALORE vs. SHALINI BHUPAL

Appeal is dismissed

depreciation in respect of such machi-nery or plant has been allowed or is allowable under the provisions of this Act in computing the total income of any person for any period prior to the date of the installation of the machinery or plant by the assessee. Explanation 2.—Where in the case of an industrial undertaking, any machinery

PROGREESIVE CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

iii. \fltr':ther the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in disallowing the personnel, adminis -rative and fhancial expenditure relating to the sub-contracts allowed in the or(inal assessment ? iv. \I(h,:ther the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse insofar as it omined to consider the relevant material ,.rt , computation o[ profits

Andhra PRadesh Pradesh Fibres Limited vs. Assistant commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the order passed by the

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

III STAGE BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (By Sri.K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND: M/S ASTRA ZENECA PHARMA INDIA LTD. P.B.NO.2483 OFF BELLARY ROAD HEBBAL BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENT (By Sri.S.PARTHASARATHI SMT.JINITA CHATTERJEE, ADV.) - - - 3 THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 29.09.2011 PASSED IN ITA NO.1202/BANG/2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97, PRAYING THAT THIS

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

Commissioner of Income Tax - VI vs. M/s. S.P. Steels

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