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

INCOME TAX BANGALORE vs. SHALINI BHUPAL

Appeal is dismissed

depreciation in respect of such machi-nery or plant has been allowed or is allowable under the provisions of this Act in computing the total income of any person for any period prior to the date of the installation of the machinery or plant by the assessee. Explanation 2.—Where in the case of an industrial undertaking, any machinery

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

65,51,. 417 .OO as chargeable interest for the said aSSeSSment \'ea-r 5. Again: t the aforesaid order of assessm€ nt, €lssessee preferred ar irppeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Taking the vien' that Section 43I) of the Act, V!'aS though in roduced \^,ith elfect from O 1.0,+. 199 1, l 1 retroactive in nature, appellate

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-II vs. M/s.Ideal Industrial Explosives Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

65 and 104/2010 are rejected, as there arose the aforesaid question alone. 6. ITA No.23/2010 raises the following question for the assessment year 1999-2000:- “(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in the light of the amendment by the Finance Act (2) of 2009 which had introduced Explanation 'g' below Section 115JA

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. R SURYANARAYANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

65,989/- on account of Foreign Trade expenses by ignoring the assessing officer had clearly analysed the foreign travel expenses and allowed the foreign travel expenses which were spent for the business purpose? (ii) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal has erred in law as well as on fact and the impugned order

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

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, vs. M/s Pitti Laminations Ltd.,

In the result, M.A.C.A.No

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of the injuries that he sustained in an accident on 11.03.2001. He contended that, while he was travelling as a passenger in an auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KL-8/2064 through the Ayyanthole Civil Line Quarters Road, when the auto rickshaw reached the road junction, a car bearing