COMM OF INCOME TAX, HYD vs. M/S. BALAN NATURAL FOOD PRIVATE LTD., HYD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

69,349/- being excess provision claimed under Section 36(vii-a) 5 of the Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed the depreciation

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. SOMA ENTERPRISES LTD

The appeal is disposed off accordingly

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

depreciation claimed by the assessee in respect of the buildings amounting to Rs.4,92,10,011/- which was already allowed in the earlier assessment years, was disallowed for the purpose of computing exemption under Section 11 of the Act. 5. So far as the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is concerned, a survey under Section 133A was conducted

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. 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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III, HYD vs. M/S. SUJANA METALS LTD, HYD

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

69,453. ITA 549/2011 Page 4 of 16 During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by Assessing Officer that the assessee had shown the income from Long Term Capital Gains @ ` 3,80,02,500/-. Moreover, AO observed that this income should be made taxable under the head „Business and Professions‟ vis-a-vis „Capital Gain‟ as taken

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

The appeal is disposed of

69 TAXMANN.COM 170 (SC) and decision of this court in ‘THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR. VS. M/S INDIA HERITAGE TRUST’, ITA NO.754/2007 DATED 04.08.2014. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that since, the assessee does not fall within scope and ambit of Section 11(1)(a) of the 8 Act, the income

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-IV vs. M/s.Mold-Tek Technologies Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

69. In the case of Addl. Commissioner of Page 6 of 24 C/TAXAP/273/2011                                                                                                 JUDGMENT Income Tax v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers : [1980] 121 ITR 1 (SC), the Supreme Court held as under: The test which has, therefore, now to be applied is whether the predominant object of the activity involved in carrying out the object of general public utility

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