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 :-

50,250/- for the assessment year 2000-01 ? 2) Whether on a true and proper interpretation of the provisions of section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 depreciation

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

depreciation. The rate of minimum tax was kept at a modest figure deeming 30 per cent of book profits as total income. This modest amount is likely to go down further with the downward revision of corporate tax rate to 35 per cent and abolition of surcharge. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 45.4 The Act also inserts a new section 115JAA

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 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

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mohan Milk LIne Pvt Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

50% of the depreciation has to be allowed in the subsequent year" and is not the above finding against law and perverse? 2. Whether, on the Tribunal is right in law in holding that "the second proviso to section

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

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

50% of the depreciation has to be allowed in the subsequent year" and is not the above finding against law and perverse? 2. Whether, on the Tribunal is right in law in holding that "the second proviso to section

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

2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for ten consecutive assessment years i.e., nine subsequent consecutive years after the initial Assessment Year 2004-05 in which deduction was allowed for the first time? ii) Whether, the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata ought not to reject the cross- objections filed by the Assessee for the Assessment Year

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

50% of the alleged profits to the alleged PE of the Appellant in India and whether such approach and quantification was inconsistent with Article 7 of the DTAA? ITA 666/2014 & Ors. Page 7 of 57 (v). Whether Tribunal erred in confirming the levy of interest under section 234B of the Act?‖ 7. The principal controversy involved in these appeals

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

2,09,72,07/-. In view of above, the revised total depreciation claim of Rs. 3,16,84,86,154/- was intimated to the AO with a request that the same be accepted at the time of finalization of the assessment. In the reply dated 17.10.1997 the appellant company took care to enclose revised chart of depreciation as a separate

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

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

2 of 9 non-STPI zone and hence its income was taxable. The other unit was located in a STPI zone in Gurgaon and its income was exempted under Section 10-A of the Act. The STPI unit was engaged in the business of development and support of its parent company in US/sister concerns worldwide as well as their customers

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

The appeal is dismissed

2 were completed and addition of Rs.1,01,016/- was made and keeping in view the provisions of 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

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:

Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act ? We have heard Mr. Smarajit Roychowdhury, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr. J. P. Khaitan, learner Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Sanjoy Bhowmick and Ms. Swapna Das, learned Advocates for the respondent/assessee. It is not in dispute that the tax effect for the assessment year

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

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

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

2. This appeal has been filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) against the order dated 24.6.2011 (Annexure A-IV) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench “A”, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in ITA No. 1048/CHANDI/2008 for the assessment year 2005-06 claiming the following

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