COMM.OF INCOMETAX AP I HYD vs. M/S.DIAMOND HATCHERIES P.LTD HYD

43,642/- and ` 23,27,233/- for the respective years to be calculated after reducing the claim under Section 32AB of the Act in respect of those units being eligible whereas it should have been calculated separately as provided under Section GURBAX SINGH 2015.11.17 12:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur. vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Narasaraopet.

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

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

43(1) of the Act? 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the assessee is in the business of trading in computer systems and components. The assessee filed the return of income for the Assessment Year 2000- 01, in which a total income of Rs.6,12,69,280/- was declared and refund of Rs.4

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri P.Sarveswara Rao

Appeals are partly allowed, in view of the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

5 of 27 areas does not help if at all. Section 43-B opens with an overriding clause making it obligatory that any deduction of a sum “payable by the assessee by way of tax, duty, cess or fee, by whatever name called, under any law for the time being in force”, can be allowed such sum is actually paid

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

5,12700/- was expenditure in its construction and after deducting 30 % of depreciation, cost of the construction was comes to Rs. 3,59,000/- and he proved the valuation report Ex.P/78. He also proved the document Ex.P/79 and Ex.P/80 and he also opined that at the time of valuation of the house it comes to Rs. 4,10,130/- after

THE PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [CENTRAL] HYDERABAD vs. M/S SREE NAGENDRA CONSTRUCTIONS, KHAMMAM

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: This

43[5] of the Act. Further, the Tribunal erred in relying upon the decisions which was not applicable to the facts of the case? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is - 4 - right in setting aside the addition in respect of foreign exchange gain on reinstatement of FDDBs made by the assessing

The Commissioner of Income Tax - IV vs. M/s. Mekins Agro Product (P) Ltd.

5. "Senior counsel, Sri A. K. J. Nambiar, a;ppearing for the assessee, submitted that the assessee has been filing income-tax returns for several years including the assessment year 2005-06, and disallowance is made only for this year. Since business income has to be as stated in section 29 by granting all deductions provided under sections

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

section 2(15) is not correct. The comparative three years profit and loss account submitted by the assessee is as under : For the year ended on Particulars 31.03.2009 31.03.2008 31.03.2007 31.03.2006 31.03.2005 INCOME Dumping & 6,27,76,328 6,06,27,173 5,16,08,028 3,92,57,369 Page 8 of 96 C/TAXAP/627/2015 JUDGMENT Effluent Treatment Charges Other

COMM OF INCOME TAX, HYD vs. M/S. BALAN NATURAL FOOD PRIVATE LTD., HYD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

depreciation claimed on securities classified as ‘Held to Maturity’ and further held that the assessee had earned aggregate sum of Rs.68,65,73,177/-, which is exempt under various sub-Sections of Section 10 of the Act and disallowed the aforesaid amount in terms of Section 14A of the Act. A sum of Rs.3,43,28,658/- being 5

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultral Market Committee,

Appeal is dismissed

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

5. Since it appeared that the CENVAT Credit amounting to `2,88,779/- (Rupees Two Lac Eighty Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy Nine Only) taken in respect of the capital goods was availed of wrongly in violation of the provisions of Rule 4 (4) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004/2002 and that the said wrong availment could

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX R.MUNDRY vs. A.VENKATESWARLU AND OTHERS

The appeal is allowed in the above terms with no

Bench: The Assessing Officer (Ao) & Claimed Depreciation Allowance On The Increased Cost Of The Plant & Machinery Due To Exchange Fluctuations. The Ao In The Assessment Order Dated 31St March 1997 Rejected The Above Claim.

Section 43 A of the Act, in the context of development rebate, it was // 4 // Page 4 of 5 observed that the increase or decrease in liability should be taken into account to modify the figure of actual cost and secondly that such adjustment should be made in the year in which the increase or decrease in liability arises

The Commissioner of Income tax III, vs. Biraj Kavar Galada

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

43,22,862/- in accordance with RBI guidelines and accounting employed which had been accepted earlier cannot be treated as the income of the assessee? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was correct in failing to appreciate Section 43D of the Act and Section36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(2)(i) of the Act which contemplated treating the said amount

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

5. Appellant in i.T.T.ANo.58 of 2002 is an assessee under the Act having the status of Pannership Firm. For the assessment year 7997-98, assessee filed return of income on 28.La.1997 declaring NIL income after setting off the brought forward losses. In the course of assessment proceedings, assessing officer took the view that there was conceaiment of income

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

5 The Second Party shall be exclusively entitled to market the residential flats to the intending purchasers on such terms and conditions as agreed and in consultation with the First Party. ARTICLE 6 The price for the sale of undivided share in the land payable by the intending purchasers shall be at Rs.150/- per sq.ft of the undivided share required

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

depreciation was not allowed. 5. The CIT (Appeals) affirmed the aforesaid findings given by the Assessing Officer. 6. In the second appeal before the tribunal, it has been held that the expenditure incurred was a revenue expense and should be allowed. ITA 160/2012 Page 3 of 10 7. It is an undisputed fact that the respondent-assessee had entered into

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

5. By a reply dated 15th December 1997 the Assessee contended that the space to be sold was in its stock and trade. The space allotted to various persons had been surrendered by them for various reasons. Such persons who surrendered had insisted that since they had invested money with the Assessee which had remained with 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

5. By a reply dated 15th December 1997 the Assessee contended that the space to be sold was in its stock and trade. The space allotted to various persons had been surrendered by them for various reasons. Such persons who surrendered had insisted that since they had invested money with the Assessee which had remained with the Assessee

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