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

b) The assessee‟s P & L account stated that unit-wise sale was allocated in the ratio of production cost and clearance made by each unit and further, in the Notes that various expenses have been allocated on the basis of domestic sales. However, there were certain expenses claimed in consolidated Profit and Loss Account which catered to the needs

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

b) storage costs, unless those costs are necessary in the production process prior to a further production stage; (c) administrative overheads that do not contribute to bringing ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 16 of 36 the inventories to their present location and condition; and (d) selling and distribution costs.” 28. There is, therefore, merit in the contention of the Assessee

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

b) storage costs, unless those costs are necessary in the production process prior to a further production stage; (c) administrative overheads that do not contribute to bringing ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 16 of 36 the inventories to their present location and condition; and (d) selling and distribution costs.” 28. There is, therefore, merit in the contention of the Assessee

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

Shri Maneklal Agarwal vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are allowed and

Bench: A RAMALINGESWARA RAO,DILIP B. BHOSALE

b) Rajesh Kumar Gupta S/o. …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) 2 CFA Nos. 1/2005 & 2/2005 Late Sudagar Shah (c) Vikram Kumar Gupta S/o. Late Sudagar Shah (d) Raman Kr. Gupta, S/o. Late Sudagar Shah 2 Pran Nath aged 66 years S/o. of Sh. Amar Nath 3 Smt. Raj Kumari aged 57 W/o. Shri Pran Nath 4 Smt. Sudesh Kumari aged

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

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

B. In terms of the said MOU, the First Party’ has substantially established the title of the present owners to the above immovable property and has now started the process of securing the title to the above land from the present owners. C. Pending the First Party securing the transfer of title to the property and pending compliance with