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

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

4) the assessee is entitled to set off MAT credit at the stage at which the tax has become payable. Consequently, it was submitted, that the assessee is entitled to take into account the tax credit (MAT credit) available to it under section 115JAA when it computes the tax payable under section 209 of the said Act. It was submitted

Commissioenr of Income Tax vs. Dr. T. Ravi Kumar

45,911/-, which in the order section 143(3) was determined at depreciation loss of Rs. 114,47,28,440/-. The same was subsequently revised under section 154 at a loss of Rs. 114,46,13,711/- and further recomputed at Rs. 116,30,34,284/- after appeal effect . In another words the assessed figure at all stages

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri P.Sarveswara Rao

Appeals are partly allowed, in view of the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

section 4 – A of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948 (UP Act No. XV of 1948), hereinafter referred to as the Act the Governor is pleased to declare that 1(A) In respect of any goods manufactured in a „new unit, other than the units of the type mentioned in Annexure II established in the areas mentioned in Column

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

4. Revenue relies upon decision ofthe Kerala High Court in Lissie Medical Institution vs. C/r(2012) 348 ITR 344 (Ker). The said decision, no doubt, supports the proposition propounded by the Revenue and we would like to reproduce the following observations:- 5. "Senior counsel, Sri A. K. J. Nambiar, a;ppearing for the assessee, submitted that the assessee has been

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

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III, HYD vs. M/S. SUJANA METALS LTD, HYD

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

depreciation is prescribed”. 8. It can also be said that the „right to carry on any business‟ has been recognized by the legislature as capital asset for the purposes of assessing and computing the capital gains as is clear from the reading of Section 55 (2) (a) of the Act, which is in the following terms:- (2) For the purposes

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

4,10,130/- after 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

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. R SURYANARAYANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

45,778/- on account of additional depreciation made by the assessing officer without citing any cogent reason merely by stating that the findings of the CIT (Appeals) was not rebutted by the department before it whereas the fact was that the department relied on the finding made by the assessing officer in the assessment order? (iii) Whether on the facts

The Commissioner of Income Tax -V, vs. M/S Secunderabad Club

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

45,33,370/-. These expenses have to apportion according W.P.(C) 422/2006, 2794/2008, 2795/2008 & 8177/2008 Page 4 of 10 to sales which has not been done resulting in excess claim of deduction in certain units and increased loss in certain units. The total sales of all units have been declared at ₹ 246,11,90,504/- (c) Besides, there were other

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Dr. T.Ravi Kumar

The appeal is disposed of

4. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the Tribunal itself in paragraph 21 of the order had recorded the finding that invocation of Section 263 of the Act in the facts of the case is justified. It was argued that the Tribunal therefore, grossly erred in setting aside the order under Section 263 of the Act. It was further

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

4. The Assessing Officer („AO‟) who picked up for scrutiny the Assessee‟s return for AY 1995-96 by an order-sheet entry dated 5th December 1997 required the Assessee to give the full details and addresses of the persons to whom the aforementioned compensation amounts were paid. The Assessee was asked to explain why the said amounts should

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

4. The Assessing Officer („AO‟) who picked up for scrutiny the Assessee‟s return for AY 1995-96 by an order-sheet entry dated 5th December 1997 required the Assessee to give the full details and addresses of the persons to whom the aforementioned compensation amounts were paid. The Assessee was asked to explain why the said amounts should