The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s Matrix Power Pvt Ltd.,

2(45) of the Income-tax Act defines total income as ―the total amount of income referred to in section 5, computed in the manner laid down in this Act‖. Section 4 provides for charge of income-tax. Section 5 defines the scope of total income. Section 5 (1) states that subject to the provisions of the Act, the total

Dr.V.Suryanarayana Reddy vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax

Depreciation is computable as per Schedule XIV read with Sections 349 and 350 of the Companies Act, 1956. 5. Learned counsel for the State submits that since income derived from sale of saplings is an agricultural income under Section 2

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s Pokarna Limited

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

5 C.R.Building, Queens Road, Bangalore. ...APPELLANTS (By Sri. K.V.Aravind, Adv.) AND : M/s.Golflink Software Park Pvt. Ltd., 1st Floor, Embassy Point, 150, Infantry Road, Bangalore – 560 001. …RESPONDENT (By Sri.Chythanya K.K., Adv.) . . . . This I.T.A. is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 praying to (i) formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein, (ii) allow the appeal

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

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(1) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 provides that subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), the allowance under clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 32 in respect of depreciation

The Commissioner of Income Tax-V vs. Smt.R.Amala Devi

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 144 of the Act only in cases of the contractors whose gross contractual receipts exceed rupees one crore and if total profit declared was less than 5% of gross contractual receipts. 6. It is submitted that the profit of the appellant for the accounting year in question was only Rs.7,92,508/-, which, in any case, was more than

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

2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant denied the charge and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove the charge against the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 36 witnesses. The statement of the accused appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has also been recorded in which he denied the circumstances appears against him, plead

THE STATE BANK OF HYD. vs. THE JT.COMMI.SPL.RANGE IV HYD.

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

depreciation allowancc to the l8 assessees. Based upon the said Supreme Court decision, rectification orders were passed by the successor assessing authority. Whether a subsequent decision can be the basis for "rectifying" a.:n ea.rlier order in exercise of the powers under section 154 of the lncome-ta-x Act? Although the opening words of section 154(l) - "with

Commissioner of Income-Tax, vs. Rangaraya Medical College Old Students Association

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 16 of the Reforms Act, was granted. The order passed by the APERC was upheld by a Bench of this Court by an order dated 08.O6.2O01 in C.M.A.No.L97I of 2OOO and other connected matters- 10. Against the aforesaid order passed by a Bench of tltis Court, a Special Leave Peti(ion was preferred. 11. The Honble Supreme

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

Section 143(3)/147 of the Act. Assessment Order dated 18th December, 2006 14. The AO observed that the Assessee had not booked any establishment cost, 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

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Smt.Anitha Sanghi

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-1, UDUPI. ... APPELLANTS (By Sri.K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.) AND: SYNDICATE BANK HEAD OFFICE ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT TAX CELL, P.B.NO.1 MANIPAL. ... RESPONDENT (By Sri.T.SURYANARAYANA, ADV.) - - - THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 9/10/2009 PASSED IN ITA No.1282/BANG/2007, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-2001, PRAYING

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

2 questions of law:- “i) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the orders of learned CIT (A) in so far as directing the learned AO in allowing the deduction under section 80I after reducing the amount of deduction allowable to the appellant under section 32AB of the Income

AP. STATE SEEDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, HYD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, HYD.

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

depreciation which woul l be required to be set off against the profit I / 8 of the relevant previous year as if the provisions of clause (b) of the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 205 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), are applicable. (2) Nothing contained in sub-section (l) sha.ll a-ffect the determination

INCOME TAX BANGALORE vs. SHALINI BHUPAL

Appeal is dismissed

2) This section applies to any industrial undertaking which fulfils all the following conditions, namely :— (i) it is not formed by the splitting up, or the reconstruction, of a business already in existence; (ii) it is not formed by the transfer to a new business of machinery or plant previously used for any purpose; ITA 38/2000 Page 5

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

2) and 142(1) were issued on 26.11.2001. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 4 31.03.2003 inter alia held that Digital Equipment Corporation, United States of America was taken over by the assessee for an amount of Rs.83.99 Crores and the details of net assets taken over and the particulars of liability, loans etc were furnished in the agreement

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

5 per cent. The question which arose before the court for determination was: whether depreciation could be denied to the assessee, as expenditure on acquisition of the assets had been treated as application of income in the year of acquisition? It was held by the Bombay High Court that section 11 of the Income Tax Act makes provision in respect

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 the total incor,re of the assessee at Rs.2,16,89,170.00. Flowever, after adjustmerrt of the refund for earlier assessment y3ars, the amount payabl,: bythe assessee