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

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

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 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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

55 l2OO4 on the file of the High Court. Between: 1. Transmission Corporatron of A.P. Ltd. Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT 2. Eastern power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., 30-14-9, Sai Salthi Bhavan, Opp.Saraswati Park, Daba Garden, Visakhapatnam -530020 ...APPELLANT/RESPON DENT 25 AND 1 . M/s. Hindustan Zinc Ltd., P.O. Zinc Smelter, Visakhapatnam _53001 5 ..RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 2. Andhra Pradesh

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

2 of 1886), was in force: 10 (c)in the case of any block of assets,- (i)in respect of any previous year relevant to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, the aggregate of the written down values of all the assets falling within that block of assets at the beginning of the previous year

Shri Maneklal Agarwal vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are allowed and

Bench: A RAMALINGESWARA RAO,DILIP B. BHOSALE

55 of the Contract Act failure to perform the obligation regarding the payment of Rs. 1.5 lacs by the respondent by ending December, 1996, does not make the contract voidable at the option of the proposed vendors. This is so because no consequences are provided in the agreement to sell for failure to pay Rs. 1.50 lacs to the appellants

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 IV vs. Praga Tools Limited

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,N.RAVI SHANKAR

55,3 purposes of determining deducti NJAB AND HARYANA ARH ITA-81-2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.07.2024 …Appellant …Respondent NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH or the appellant. ) .03.2014, for determination on he circumstances of the case, the lding the decision of Ld. CIT(A) cate the expenses on sales ratio Rs.142.24 lacs as against the on account

The Commissioner of Income Tax- I vs. M/s. Avon Organics Limited

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

55 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 11th August, 2014 + INCOME TAX APPEAL 257/2012 OMNIGLOBE INFORMATION TECH INDIA PVT LTD ..... Appellant Through Mr. Ajay Vohra and Ms. Kavita Jha, Advocates. versus CIT ..... Respondent Through Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR

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 INCOME TAX-II vs. M/S.TRANSPORT CORPORATION OF INDIA

In the result, we set aside the assessment orders, except to

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

2. The appeals filed before the Commissioner of Income- tax were disposed of deleting addition of undisclosed investment and depreciation claimed by the assessee was also allowed. In all other respects, the assessment orders were confirmed. 3. The Revenue and the assessee filed appeals challenging the orders passed by the first appellate authority before the Tribunal. The Tribunal disposed

Commissioner of Income Tax [TDS] vs. The Executive Engineer

In the result, these appeals fail and are

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SEETHARAMA MURTI

section 115 JB of Act? 8. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in allowing the relief with regard to losses which were due to operational mistakes, related mainly to ATM transactions of customer and that loss is essential capital loss incurred for operational purposes? 9. Whether on the facts