The Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. Harmahendar Singh Bagga

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

depreciation in the subsequent year. 4.2 Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee refers to and relies on the judgments in Commissioner of Income- tax, Madurai v. T P Textiles (P) Ltd.1 and Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore v. Rittal India (P) Ltd2 for sustaining the view taken by the Tribunal. It is also argued that the clarificatory amendment made

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

depreciation of earlier )tars, the income of 5 us the assessee was quantified at Rs. 22,61,520.00. It is this order of the Tribunal, nhich is under impugnment in the two appeals before 10. In the appeal filed by the assessee 2.e., I.T.T.ANo .58 o{ 20a2, the substantial question of law raised is whether Tribunal could have quantified

The Commissioner of Income Tax- V, vs. Dr. M.Venkataramana,

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income Tax. After Considering The Plus & Minus Points, The Appeal Was Finalised, Whereby Some Points Were

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act by the Assessing Officer as per order dated 10.01.2002, assessing a total income of Rs.5,79,77,070/- and fixing the tax liability accordingly. This is sought to be challenged by the Assessee by filing appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax. After considering the plus and minus points, the appeal

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

79 and 77/2009-10. These appeals were preferred by the Assessee against separate orders dated 29th January, 2010 passed by the AO to give effect to the common order dated 22nd December, 2009 passed by CIT(A) for AYs 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06. ITA 666/2014 & Ors. Page 5 of 57 3. ITA No. 689/2014 is directed against ITAT

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 [TDS] vs. The Executive Engineer

In the result, these appeals fail and are

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SEETHARAMA MURTI

depreciation, if any, is to be provided and allowed for in the account? 7. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in concluding that banking companies are exempt from MAT provisions even when there is no specific exemption for the banking companies in the provisions of section 115 JB of Act? 8. Whether

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. All these expenditure have been incurred for the purpose of carrying out the activities of the company and are duly admissible. Hence, there is no cause for denying the same being not incurred for the purpose of the activities of the company. Any organization is required to incur expenditure for the purpose for which