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

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

6. From the above, what is clear is that the Central Board also confirms the view taken by us that after allowing cost of acquisition as application of income for charitable purposes and over and above if depreciation is claimed on such assets, so much of the depreciation allowed will generate income outside the books of account and unless

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri P.Sarveswara Rao

Appeals are partly allowed, in view of the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

depreciation and not the grant of deduction in respect of Sales-tax collections which had not been paid in accordance with the provisions of sec.43-B of the IT Act. (e) No objection on the issue whether the assessee‟s industrial undertaking was set up in a backward area, notified by the Central Govt. for the purpose of benefit under provisions

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultral Market Committee,

Appeal is dismissed

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

depreciation under Section 32 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961).” 11. The admitted fact on record is that the appellant availed CENVAT Credit on capital goods to the tune of `6

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

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

6. Similarly, ITA No. 689/2014 was also admitted on 24th February, 2015 and the following questions of law were framed:- ―(i). Whether the Tribunal erred in concluding that the Appellant had a Permanent Establishment (PE) within the meaning of Article 5 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and USA? (ii). Whether the Tribunal erred in affirming that

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

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.

depreciation allowance on increased cost of plant and machinery due to exchange rate fluctuation. The CIT (A) referred to the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kanoria Chemicals and Industries Ltd [1994] 207 ITR 718 (Cal); the decision of Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Hindustan Aluminum Corporation

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

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 III, vs. M/S. SAVIJANA SEA FOODS PVT. LTD.,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

6. The AO negatived the above plea of the Assessee by holding that the Assessee had not paid any compensation to the allottees but had in fact “repurchased these flats” since the allottees had “surrendered their rights in those flats.” Consequently, it was held that the compensation paid to the flat owners could not be said to be business expenditure

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

6. The AO negatived the above plea of the Assessee by holding that the Assessee had not paid any compensation to the allottees but had in fact “repurchased these flats” since the allottees had “surrendered their rights in those flats.” Consequently, it was held that the compensation paid to the flat owners could not be said to be business expenditure

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

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

6. Aggrieved by the above order of the assessment, assessee preferred first appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-V (C-entral), Hvderabad, (briefly'CIT($' hereinafter). In the course of appellate proceedings, CIT(A) agreed with the assessing oificer that the difference in stocls declared by the assessee to the bank and to the assessing officer represents undisclosed investment

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% thereof

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-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. 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