Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur. vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Narasaraopet.

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

7 of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal, which has been upheld by the High Court of Delhi in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-IV VS. HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGES (P.) LTD., (2011) 198 TAXMAN 104 (DELHI). 6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Section 32 deals with depreciation

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s Matrix Power Pvt Ltd.,

7) of section 10B provides that the provisions of sub-section (8) and sub-section (10) of section 80-IA shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the undertaking referred to in the section as they apply for the purposes of an undertaking referred to in section 80-IA. A similar provision corresponding to sub- section

The Commissioner of Income Tax - IV vs. M/s. Mekins Agro Product (P) Ltd.

depreciated. In other words, Rs.60,000/- is to be treated as application of money for the purpose of clause 'a' to Section v.. V 11(1). 6. Initially we were inclined to accept the submission raised by the Revenue that there are several good reasons why we have declined to interfere and refer the matter to a larger bench

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

7 authorities is just and proper. Hence, he seeks for dismissal of the above appeal. 11. The relevant factual matrix is undisputed, inasmuch as by virtue of the said agreement the assessee has acquired the right to use the trademark of Philips India Ltd., for a period of 36 months. Further, it is forthcoming that in respect of the said

PROGREESIVE CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

depreciation on tmc[s. Thereafter, uide the assessmenr order dated 31.03.1997 passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 1a8(sz;) o[ the Act, assessing officer computed t zol trn ltz 5 the total incor,re of the assessee at Rs.2,16,89,170.00. Flowever, after adjustmerrt of the refund for earlier assessment y3ars, the amount payabl,: bythe assessee

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

7. The principal controversy involved in these appeals (ITA Nos. 669/2014, 671/2014, 672/2014 and 689/2014) is whether the Assessee, a tax resident of United States of America (USA), has a Permanent Establishment (hereafter 'PE') in India and consequently, is chargeable to tax under the Act in respect of its business income attributable to its PE in India. Factual background

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultral Market Committee,

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

7. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the appellant holding that the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of CENVAT Credit even though benefit of depreciation was reversed by the appellant. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contends that admittedly, the appellant availed two benefits of CENVAT Credit

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

The appeal is disposed of

7. Thus, from close scrutiny of Section 263 it is evident that twin conditions are required to be satisfied for exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act firstly, the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous and secondly, that it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on account of error in the order of assessment

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

7. The submissions of the assessee as regards the registration under Section 12A of the Act as noted by the Assessing Officer are as under: “Initial rejection of application seeking registration u/s 12AA and subsequent grant of registration of U/s 12AA of the Act :- At paragraph 2(a), page 2 of the letter under reply, your honour had made

THE COMMI.OF INCOME TAX,HYD. vs. VAIBHAV

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

7. As a matter of fact, CIT($ put the assessee on notice as to why the sum of Rs. 2,74,,36,502.00 should not be added to the 4 income of the assessee as unexplained investment as against Rs.2,13,,A7393.C0 added by the assessing officer. Explanation fumished by the assessee was found to be not satisfactory. Accordingly

Commissioner of Income tax vs. Sri. B. Ramesh,

Section 115-J.” 7) The above judgment further followed in the case of Malayala Manorama Co. ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Income- Tax[2]. 8) In the present case, the learned counsel for the Revenue on going through the Assessment order, which is the forming part of the record, would fairly concealed that the Assessing Officer had committed an error

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. Hetero Labs Ltd

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

section 12 apply; or (g) the amount of depreciation. If any amount referred to in clauses (a) to (g) is debited to the profit and loss account, and as reduced by- (i) the amount withdrawn from any reserves or provision (excluding a reserve created before the 1st day of April, 1997 otherwise than by way of a debit

COMM.OF INCOMETAX AP I HYD vs. M/S.DIAMOND HATCHERIES P.LTD HYD

depreciation, investment allowance etc. The Hon'ble High Court followed its decision reported in 218 ITR 71. The said decision was also followed in the case reported in 225 ITR 374. We may further refer to the decision of the Hon'be Supreme Court in the case of Moti Lal Pesticides (India) Pvt. Limited vs. CIT, 243 ITR 26 wherein

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

Section 271(1)(c). The penalty of Rs. 99,68,280/-imposed by the AO for A. Y. 1995-1996 is therefore ordered to be deleted.” 8. The above finding of Id. CIT(A), in our considered view does not suffer from any infirmity. The Id. CIT(A) has considered the issue in right prespective. The Id.CIT(A) has ascertained

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

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

Depreciation claim of 50:50 ratio also appeared to him to be disproportionate and without any cogent basis. As regard Bad Debts claim also, as written off & reflected in the unallocated segment, the AO observed that the said amount represented the Date of the previous years, pertaining to its software operations and therefore, bad debt should have been allocated

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 is to be deducted, to arrive at an income available to charitable or religious purposes. 7. So far as Section

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 Comissioner of Income Tax III, vs. Smt. Shanti Singh,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

depreciation of section 32;] g s f f s n d e r h n n d l e f r f r d n VARINDER SINGH 2024.11.14 14:36 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment ITA N 5. interpreted b considered b and relatable information a evidence whi officer has an relatable to s Therefore