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

M/s.V.R.Farms Pvt Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

b) reduction of the amount of relief of tax allowed under section 90 and 90A and deduction from the Indian Income-tax before furnishing the return of income. 38.3 The credit for the above shall also be allowed under section 140A for calculating tax and interest before furnishing the return of income. 38.4 The above amendments will take effect from

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

b) (c) Where a deduction allowed for any previous year under this sub-section in respect of expenditure represented wholly or partly by an asset, no deduction shall be allowed in respect ofthat asset under [clause (ii) of sub-section (1)] of section 32 for the same or any subsequent previous year." 13. The language of the sub-clause

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

b) of the Act in Page 2 of 96 C/TAXAP/627/2015 JUDGMENT Form No.10B. The same was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. Later, the case was selected for scrutiny and notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) respectively of the Act along with the questionnaire was issued dated 24th June, 2011. The Assessing Officer called upon

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

6 reference to the balance of income. It was also observed that where the gross total income computed as stated in Section 80B (5) in all figure or a loss, the question of deduction under any or all of the sections in Chapter IA will not arise even though 20% of the profits and gains in respect of the specified

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

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: This

B” Bench, Bangalore ['Tribunal' for short] dated 18.03.2016 passed in ITA No.373/Bang/2015 relating to the assessment year 2010-11. 2. The appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in setting aside the disallowance made under section

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 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 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

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