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

Section 271(1)(c). The penalty of Rs. 99,68,280/-imposed by the AO for A. Y. 1995-1996 is therefore ordered to be deleted.” 8. The above finding of Id. CIT(A), in our considered view does not suffer from any infirmity. The Id. CIT(A) has considered the issue in right prespective. The Id.CIT(A) has ascertained

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

1. Nortel Networks India International Inc. (hereafter ‗the Assessee‘) has preferred the present appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter ‗the Act‘) against orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter ‗ITAT‘). ITA Nos. 669/2014, 671/2014 and 672/2014 are appeals preferred by the Assessee against a common ITA 666/2014 & Ors. Page 4 of 57 order

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

Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has also been recorded in which he denied the circumstances appears against him, plead innocence and have submitted that he was posted as Junior Engineer from April 1978 to 1979 at PNT Department, Nasik. He was working since February 1980 in Irrigation Department. But the income of the said period was not counted. His wife

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mohan Milk LIne Pvt Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

50% of depreciation unavailed under Section 32(1)(iia) in the previous year ending on 31.03.2008, whether could be allowed

The Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. Harmahendar Singh Bagga

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

50% of depreciation unavailed under Section 32(1)(iia) in the previous year ending on 31.03.2009, whether could be allowed

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 4,07,88,644 1

The Commissioner of Income tax III vs. M/s. Sree Sree Wines

Accordingly, the appeal (ITAT/75/2010) stands dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

50% depreciation on “Purely Temporary Erections” used for less than 180 days? iv) Whether, the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata erred in Law in not treating the 100% depreciation as revenue expense and in wrongly applying the provisions of Section 32(1

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

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

50 to 59 / DC (A) lll/ CIT (A) lll/ 89-90 Between: The State Bank of lndia having its registered office at Gunfoundry, Hyderabad - 500 001 , rep. by its Chief Manager ( Finance & Taxation ) , Mr. C. Ramaswamy ...... APPELLANT APPELLANT Deputy Commissioner of lncome - Tax, Circle 3 (2) Signature Towers , Kondapur, Hyderabad - 500084 Respondent ( Dismissal for defanlt order dated

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

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

Depreciation claim of 50:50 ratio also appeared to him to be disproportionate and without any cogent basis. As regard Bad Debts claim also, as written off & reflected in the unallocated segment, the AO observed that the said amount represented the Date of the previous years, pertaining to its software operations and therefore, bad debt should have been allocated

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

depreciation, reserves, etc., a part of it should in all fairness go to the employees.” 30. In the said case the Supreme Court was considering whether payment for ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 17 of 36 the extra services rendered by an employee could be allowed as business expenditure. It was held that for the purposes of allowing commercial

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

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

depreciation, reserves, etc., a part of it should in all fairness go to the employees.” 30. In the said case the Supreme Court was considering whether payment for ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 17 of 36 the extra services rendered by an employee could be allowed as business expenditure. It was held that for the purposes of allowing commercial

Commissioner of Inccome Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 16Th March, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Smarajit Roychowdhury, Adv. ...For The Appellant. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjoy Bhowmick, Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. ...For The Respondent. The Court : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’ For Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30Th November, 2010 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Kolkata (The Tribunal) In Ita No.368 & 369/Kol/2010 Years 2005- 06 & 2006-07. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration:

depreciation of rolls prior to 4 30th September, 1991 as 100% and thereafter at 50%, so it to be assumed that the expenditure should be treated as capital expenditure. This aspect was also considered in the case of Malhotra Industrial Corporation taking note of the decision of the High Court of Karnataka in the case of Mysore Spun Concrete Pipe

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Margadarshi Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd.,

The appeal is dismissed

Section 40 (a) (ia) of the Act 1961 payment of Rs.1,01,016/- made to Satake India Engg (P) Ltd on account of AMC was disallowed. Further Rs.56,650/- incurred on purchase of UPS held to be capitalized and depreciation was ordered to be charged on it. Rs.7650/- were added to the income of the assessee on account of telephone

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri P.Sarveswara Rao

Appeals are partly allowed, in view of the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

50 Crores Monitory limit upto which exemption from or reduction in the rate of tax is admissible 1 2 3 4 5 ITA 315/2003 & connected cases Page 17 of 27 A B C (iii) The Taj Trapezium Area 1. The district of Agra (excluding Taj Trapezium Area) Aligarh (excluding Taj Trapezium area) Allahabad (excluding the area in south of Rivers

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- I vs. M/s. Avon Organics Limited

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

50 18 Filing charges 1000 19 Computer maintenance 2740 20 Pantry Charges 170485 21 Printer Cartridge 22800 22 Office Maintenance 23724 23 Transportation charges 628284 24 Stationery 18375 25 Lease Line Charges 274331 26 Telephone Expenses 68182 27. Printing Charges 7350 28. Travelling Expenses International 7732 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Expenses pertaining to April & May 04 5902448/- ” This break-up was noticed

M/s.CCL Products [India] Limited vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax-I

1,77,48,529/- on account of unexplained sales and ` 3,49,65,324/- on account of unexplained purchases. Feeling aggrieved against the order of CIT under Section GURBACHAN SINGH 2014.09.04 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh ITA No. 360 of 2011 -4- 263 of the Act, the assessee filed