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

36. PW-25 Radheshyam Pawar is the Assistant (Legal Cell), Municipal Council, Dhamtari proved the sanction letter of map for construction of the house which is Ex.P/73. 37. PW-26, Tilakram who has taken the unnumbered FIR from Lokayukta, Raipur to Bhopal for numbered FIR which is Ex.P/74. 38. PW-27, Rambharos Soni is the SDO (PWD) has done

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

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

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 to Reliance was purchased from other group companies, namely, Nortel Canada and Nortel Ireland and were supplied to Reliance at almost half the price

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

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 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 IV vs. M/s Matrix Power Pvt Ltd.,

1) applies are for the purposes of determining the quantum of deduction to be computed as if such eligible business were the only source of income of the assessee during the previous year relevant to the ITA 386/2013 Page 6 initial assessment year and to every subsequent assessment year. A provision akin to sub-section (5) of section

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

THE COMMI.OF INCOME TAX,HYD. vs. VAIBHAV

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

36,5A2.A0 as u.rexplained investment and to add the same to the income of the assessee. 8. Insofar the other two additions of Rs. 43,01,985.00 and Rs. 1,87,218.00 are concemed, CXT(A) did not found any infirmity in the decision taken by the assessing officer and therefore, confirmed the above two conditions by the appellate order

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

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 not be regarded as machinery or plant

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 on valuation of investment portfolio is allowable by treating the investments held by the assessee

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 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment ITA N 5. interpreted b considered b and relatable information a evidence whi officer has an relatable to s Therefore

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

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

1) of the Act determinirrg the income of the assessee ar Rs.1,09.12,410.00. 5. Subscqu,:ntly the aforesaid assessment was reopened under Section 147 ol the Act by issue of notice dated 31.01.1997 under Section 148 of the Act. 4 6 During the reassessment proceedings, assessing officer noted that in the original assessment proceedings, he had not talcn into

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 IV vs. Praga Tools Limited

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,N.RAVI SHANKAR

v a 3 C t R R r p IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUN AT CHANDIGA I D er of Income Tax-II, CHD Vs. emedies Ltd. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Advocate fo RAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) The case was admitted on 04. estion of law:- 1) Whether