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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

6), did not have the power to reduce or waive interest statutorily payable under sections 234A, 234B and 234C except to the extent of granting relief under the circulars issued by the Board under section 119 of the Act. 12. Reliance was also placed by the learned counsel for the revenue on the Bombay High Court decision

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

depreciation of 20% after two years. In cross- examination he admitted that he has not attached any Government circular with respect to the valuation of the construction. He further stated that at the time of preparing the first report, he was not informed about the check period and when the check period was informed by the Lokayukta Police, he prepared

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri P.Sarveswara Rao

Appeals are partly allowed, in view of the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

c) The assessee‟s assertion that it is entitled to claim deduction in view of subsidy by virtue of notifications issued by the State a Govt. does not help its case as, provisions of Sec.43- B are clear and non ambiguous as well as overriding in nature. (d) The assessee‟s reference to several judgements of the High Courts

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

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

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

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

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 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

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

C. Pending the First Party securing the transfer of title to the property and pending compliance with the obligations at clauses 2, 3 and 4 of the MOU, this Agreement is being entered into by the parties to place on record the terms and conditions agreed upon by them” 22. Shri. Pradeep Kumar Sharma undertook to develop the subject property

Shri Maneklal Agarwal vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are allowed and

Bench: A RAMALINGESWARA RAO,DILIP B. BHOSALE

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 60 years, W/o. Shri Sudagar Shah 5 Dr. Sandeep Kumar aged 34 years 6 Er. Randeep Kumar aged