Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), vs. M/s Country Club Inda Limited

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 7 of the DTAA? ITA 666/2014 & Ors. Page 7 of 57 (v). Whether Tribunal erred in confirming the levy of interest under section 234B

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. Sree Sree Wines

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

iv) Whether, the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata erred in Law in not treating the 100% 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

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

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

iv) of sub- section (4)] which fulfills all the following conditions, namely:- (i) it is not formed by splitting up, or the reconstruction, of a business already in existence: - - 25 Provided that this condition shall not apply in respect of an [undertaking] which is formed as a result of the re-establishment, reconstruction or revival by the assessee

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

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

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

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

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 in sub- contrac, worlss ? v. \X4ether t}le order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is pewt'rse a]so for the reason that it omitted to consider the re,evant judicial decisions cited

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1) which reads: “(g) the amount or amounts set aside as provision for diminution in the value of any asset” is not disallowance of Rs.8,61,53,052/- towards provision for bad debts made under section 36(ii) (viia) while calculating the book profit under section 115JA in accordance with law?” In fact, the specific stand of the Assessing Officer

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

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

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

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

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

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 5 vs. M/s Vijay Textiles Limited

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

IV. Second Party shall in consultation with the First Party market and manage the entire project, including First Party’s entitlements. Second Party has this day paid the First Party Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) as consideration for this MOU vide Demand Draft No.0321124 dated 12th May 1995 drawn on Bank of India, in favour of Ind-Sing