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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

54{3 to 85, 1st Ftoor, T.S.K. Chambers, R.No. 4 & 4A, M.G. Road, Secunderabad - 500 003. ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 2. Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corpn- Ltd., #201 , 2d Floor My Flcme Sarovar Plaza, Secretariat Road, Hyderabad -500063. ...RESPONDENT/RESPONOENT 26 l.A. NO: 2OF 2OOS(WAMP. NO: 1714 0F 2005 PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court

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

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

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 by the Lokayukta Police, he prepared

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-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

1) of Section 2O6t:L, ol the Act. In the facts of l.hr;.t case, this Court held I liit subsequent decision can valiclh. fc,rm the basis fbr rc( tifving an order of assessment urLder Section i 54 of the A :t It was held as follows: "8. Trrre is no dispute that the decision of the Suprcrr: Court

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX R.MUNDRY vs. A.VENKATESWARLU AND OTHERS

The appeal is allowed in the above terms with no

Bench: The Assessing Officer (Ao) & Claimed Depreciation Allowance On The Increased Cost Of The Plant & Machinery Due To Exchange Fluctuations. The Ao In The Assessment Order Dated 31St March 1997 Rejected The Above Claim.

54,875/- claimed towards depreciation by the Assessee is allowable under Section 43A of the Income Tax Act, 1961?” 3. The brief facts are that the Appellant-Assessee filed its return of income for the AY 1994-95. Pursuant to a notice issued under Sections 142 (1

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. Nekkanti Sea Foods Limited

The appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

1 of 10 04 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 160/2012 CIT ..... Appellant Through Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus IMPERIAL FASTNERS P LTD ..... Respondent Through Mr. Sandeep Sapra, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR O R D E R % 25.04.2012 Revenue in this appeal under Section 260A

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

The appeal is dismissed

depreciation was ordered to be charged on it. Rs.7650/- were added to the income of the assessee on account of telephone expenses, as the assessee admitted the expenditure incurred on account of telephones installed at residences. Further addition of Rs.2,00,000/- was made on account of sale of rice, as no stock was maintained by the assessee quality wise

Shri Maneklal Agarwal vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are allowed and

Bench: A RAMALINGESWARA RAO,DILIP B. BHOSALE

54 of the Contract Act provides that when a contract consists of reciprocal promises, such that one of them cannot be performed, or that its performance cannot be claimed till the other has been performed, and the promisor of the promise, last mentioned fails to perform it, such promisor cannot claim the performance of the reciprocal promise. Section

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s.Mold-Tek Technologies Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

depreciation exceeds the surplus as generated from holding coaching classes. In addition, the petitioner institute provides study material and other academic support such as facilities of a library without any material additional costs. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. H. Abdul Bakhi and Bros. (supra) held as under: The expression "business" though extensively used

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