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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 10Th April, 2024. Appearance: Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjay Bhowmick, Advocate Ms. Swapna Das, Advocate … For The Appellant. Ms. Smita Das De, Advocate … For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Sanjay Bhowmick, Learned Counsel For The Appellant/Assessee & Ms. Smita Das De, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Respondent. 2. The Assessment Years Involved In The Present Appeal Are Assessment Year 1999-2000 & Assessment Year 2000-01. By Order Dated 16.08.2012, This Appeal Was Admitted On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law :-

5 of the Rules. No assessment order was passed by the assessing officer on the basis of returns filed by the assessee. Instead, the assessing officer issued notice under Section 148 and passed an “assessment order” dated 16.12.2002 under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, 1961. He allowed the depreciation

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Ascend Telecom Infrastructure Private Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

5. Learned Counsel at the Bar submitted that so far as the issue regarding claim of Depreciation under Section 32 of the Act is concerned

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

5) have been interpreted in various judgments in favour of the department. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Loonkar Tools Pvt. Limited, 213 ITR 721 wherein the provisions of Sections 80B and 80HH have been considered and it had been held that depreciation

COMR. OF IT HYD vs. M/S NEERAJ PETRO CHEMICALS LTD HYD

The appeal is partly allowed

5. Tax Appeal No.382/2000 was admitted in respect of the following three substantial questions of law; “(A) Whether when the liability to pay refund amount to the excise authorities had not arisen meaning thereby liability to pay interest had not accrued or arisen during the previous year, and no provision was also made Page 3 of 8 O/TAXAP/382/2000 JUDGMENT

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

Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 3. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 13.11.2009 allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee by placing reliance on earlier decision of the tribunal and held the assessee to be entitled to depreciation. The revenue approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

5. Broadly speaking, these were the submissions of the learned counsel on both sides. However, before we embark upon a discussion of the issues at hand we feel that it would be appropriate if the contentions of the learned counsel are set out in somewhat greater detail. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant/revenue that section 234B provides

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

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

5) of the Act by the Director of Income Tax-(E), Ahmedabad would be binding to the Assessing Officer. The assessee asserted that the registration under Section 12A of the Act is sufficient to arrive at the conclusion that the activities undertaken by the assessee company are charitable and fall within the ambit of Section Page 6 of 96 C/TAXAP/627/2015

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

J.ADITYA RAO, REP.BY GPA HOLDER vs. THE ASST.CODMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX,HYD

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,T.AMARNATH GOUD

depreciation made vide its letter dated 18.2.`1997 in the course of assessment proceedings, only on the ground that no revised return was filed under section 139(5

Andhra PRadesh Pradesh Fibres Limited vs. Assistant commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the order passed by the

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

depreciation 8 and notional interest, which would amount to setting aside the entire order of assessment. It was further held that since, there was no order to pass a fresh order of assessment, therefore, the order giving effect to the findings of the tribunal was not barred by limitation under Section 153(2A) of the Act. 5

INCOME TAX BANGALORE vs. SHALINI BHUPAL

Appeal is dismissed

5 (iii) it manufactures or produces any article or thing, not being any article or thing specified in the list in the Eleventh Schedule, or operates one or more cold storage plant or plants, in any part of India, and begins to manufacture or produce articles or things or to operate such plant or plants, at any time within

PROGREESIVE CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

depreciation on tmc[s. Thereafter, uide the assessmenr order dated 31.03.1997 passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 1a8(sz;) o[ the Act, assessing officer computed t zol trn ltz 5

Commissioner of IncomeTax-2, vs. Mr. Mustafa Alam Khan,

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

5 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Commissioner’ 6 9. Learned Senior Counsel for the assessee contends that the deduction by the AO regarding the amount sought to be amortized in respect of the use of trademarks was rejected on the ground that the deduction is covered by Section 32(1) as well as under Section

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

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: This

5 - provision in section 10-A warranting exclusion of the above expenses from the total turnover also?” Re. substantial question of law Nos.1 to 3: 3. These substantial questions of law are covered by ITA No.684/2015. This Court in ITA No.684/2015 has held thus:- “Thus, in the light of these judgments and in terms of the Companies Act, 1956, debenture

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. SOMA ENTERPRISES LTD

The appeal is disposed off accordingly

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

depreciation claimed by the assessee in respect of the buildings amounting to Rs.4,92,10,011/- which was already allowed in the earlier assessment years, was disallowed for the purpose of computing exemption under Section 11 of the Act. 5

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 Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax vs. D.L.V. Sridhar

Bench: D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

section 10A of the Act. 5. The aforesaid addition was deleted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who observed that the respondent-assessee was maintaining separate accounts for STPI and non-STPI unit, and the Assessing Officer had not been able to point out a single entry in respect of STPI unit which was found to be dubious