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

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. SOMA ENTERPRISES LTD

The appeal is disposed off accordingly

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

41,36,636/- which includes depreciation of the building block of Rs.4,92,10,011/-. The Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that the asseessee is not entitled to claim deduction of any amount twice, while arriving at the income of the concern. Accordingly, the depreciation claimed by the assessee in respect of the buildings amounting to Rs.4

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. Hetero Labs Ltd

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

41(1) of the Act were not attracted. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 29.12.2009 inter alia included an amount of Rs.3,59,58,370/- in the book profits for levying tax under Section 115JB of the Act and negatived the plea of the assessee that the sum was deductible in full under Explanation to Section 115JB

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax -V, vs. M/S Secunderabad Club

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 148 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

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 Income Tax vs. Agricultral Market Committee,

Appeal is dismissed

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

1. The present appeal is preferred under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short ‘Act 1944’) for quashing impugned order dated 25.01.2011 (Annexure A-3), whereby, the learned Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the appellant holding that the appellant is not entitled to benefit of CENVAT Credit. 2. The brief facts of the case, as per Order

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax vs. D.L.V. Sridhar

Bench: D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

1,48,89,090/- from the business operations of the STPI unit eligible under Section 10A of the Act. The Assessing Officer, though unable to point out any defect, deficiency or wrong entry in the books for the exempt and non- exempt unit, drew a table of income earned and expenses incurred under different heads as per the books relatable

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

M/s. CCL Products (India) Ltd., vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax -1

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX C R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -I CIRCLE-1, C R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI DILIP, ADV. FOR SRI K V ARAVIND, ADV.) AND M/S INFOSYS BPO LTD., 26/3, 26/4 & 26/6 ELECTRONIC CITY HOSUR ROAD, BANGALORE-560100. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI T.SURYANARAYANA, ADV.) 3 THIS

Commissioner of IncomeTax-II, vs. M/S RK Hair Products Pvt Limited,

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX C R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -I CIRCLE-1, C R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI DILIP, ADV. FOR SRI K V ARAVIND, ADV.) AND M/S INFOSYS BPO LTD., 26/3, 26/4 & 26/6 ELECTRONIC CITY HOSUR ROAD, BANGALORE-560100. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI T.SURYANARAYANA, ADV.) 3 THIS

Shri Maneklal Agarwal vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are allowed and

Bench: A RAMALINGESWARA RAO,DILIP B. BHOSALE

41- A, Patoli Magotrian, Jammu .…. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. P. N. Raina, Sr. Adv. with Mr. J. A. Hamal, Adv. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE JUDGMENT 1. By this common judgment, two appeals, one bearing CFA No. 2/2005 which is directed against judgment dated 16.12.2004 passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Jammu (hereinafter

Commissioner of Income Tax [TDS] vs. The Executive Engineer

In the result, these appeals fail and are

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SEETHARAMA MURTI

section 115 JB of Act? 8. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in allowing the relief with regard to losses which were due to operational mistakes, related mainly to ATM transactions of customer and that loss is essential capital loss incurred for operational purposes? 9. Whether on the facts

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

depreciation relating to fixed assets acquired for the development and related expenses and the sale price of the undivided share in the land at the rate of Rs.150/- per square foot payable by the intending purchasers as per Article 6 hereof. 8.3 The amount payable to the First Party under Article 8.1 be paid together with the sale price