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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 10Th April, 2024. Appearance: Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjay Bhowmick, Advocate Ms. Swapna Das, Advocate … For The Appellant. Ms. Smita Das De, Advocate … For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Sanjay Bhowmick, Learned Counsel For The Appellant/Assessee & Ms. Smita Das De, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Respondent. 2. The Assessment Years Involved In The Present Appeal Are Assessment Year 1999-2000 & Assessment Year 2000-01. By Order Dated 16.08.2012, This Appeal Was Admitted On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law :-

section 143(1) only. The case of appellant is supported by the decision of Madras High Court in the case of M/s. India Forge and Drop Stamping Limited Vs. CIT (1998) 223 ITR 112 (Mad), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition Vs. Mstr. Katiji & ors. 167 ITR 471 that when

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

Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has also been recorded in which he denied the circumstances appears against him, plead innocence and have submitted that he was posted as Junior Engineer from April 1978 to 1979 at PNT Department, Nasik. He was working since February 1980 in Irrigation Department. But the income of the said period was not counted. His wife

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 16 of the Reforms Act, was granted. The order passed by the APERC was upheld by a Bench of this Court by an order dated 08.O6.2O01 in C.M.A.No.L97I of 2OOO and other connected matters- 10. Against the aforesaid order passed by a Bench of tltis Court, a Special Leave Peti(ion was preferred. 11. The Honble Supreme

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

depreciation with a malafide intention. The decision relied upon by Id. A/R is squarely applicable on the facts of the present case. Therefore, in view of the detailed reasoning given by Id. CIT(A) and in view of various other case laws relied upon by Id. A/R. We hold that Id. CIT(A) was justified in canceling the levy

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

9 12. It is forthcoming that it has been held that the deduction is required to be made under Section 32(1) of the IT Act. 13. Section 32(1) of the IT Act stipulates as follows: “32. Depreciation

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

depreciation under Section 32(1) of the Act. We may refer to the relevant extract of the order passed by the Assessing Officer, which reads as under: What transpires from the above is that Digital Equipment Corporation USA has been taken over by Compaq Computer Corporation. Digital as an entity does not exist after the said takeover except in India

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

depreciation claimed on securities classified as ‘Held to Maturity’ and further held that the assessee had earned aggregate sum of Rs.68,65,73,177/-, which is exempt under various sub-Sections of Section 10 of the Act and disallowed the aforesaid amount in terms of Section 14A of the Act. A sum of Rs.3,43,28,658/- being 5% thereof

AP. STATE SEEDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, HYD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, HYD.

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

9. Thus, Tribuna-l held that appellant had adjusted prior period of expenses of Rs.3,09,504.00 from the net profit Iigure of Rs.3,42,726.OO to arrive at the figure of Rs.33,222.00 as the net prolit which according to the appellant should also be taken as the book profit in terms of Section 115J of the Act. However

Dr.V.Suryanarayana Reddy vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax

1) of section 2 for rendering the produce of such land fit to be taken to market; (iii) in transporting such produce or livestock to market; and (iv) in maintaining agricultural implements and machinery in good repair and in providing for the upkeep of cattle for the purpose of such cultivation, process, or transport: Provided that in the case

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s Pokarna Limited

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

1) of the Act on 28.08.2006. The case was selected for scrutiny by issue of notice under Section 143(2) dated 25.07.2006, which was duly served on the assessee Company. The - - 8 assessee in response to the notice issued appeared on 13.12.2007 and 14.12.2007 and filed written submissions. The assessee claimed that they are in the business of providing comprehensive

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

9) – In a case where the assessee is entitled also to the deduction under [section 80-I or] section 80J in relation to the profits and gains of an industrial undertaking or the business of a hotel to which this section applies, effect shall first be given to the provisions of this section. [Deduction in respect of profits and gains

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

depreciation and not set off. Lastly, it was argued that it would be irrational to say that losses cannot be carried forward or set off against incomes which are not tax exempt, ITA 386/2013 Page 8 because the facility of carry forward adjustment is available for a limited period. Analysis and Conclusions 8. Section 2(45) of the Income

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

1,87,218.00 are concemed, CXT(A) did not found any infirmity in the decision taken by the assessing officer and therefore, confirmed the above two conditions by the appellate order dated 27.02.2001.. 9. Assessee preferred funher appeal before the Tribunal assailing the order of CT(A) dated 27.02.2001. Tribunal, by the order dated 28.01,.20A2, deleted the additions

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Smt.Anitha Sanghi

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

depreciation on securities (iv) floating rate notes of London branch (v) DICGC loans (vi) suits filed accounts (vii) miscellaneous provision cannot be added back in accordance with Explanation of Section 115JA of the Act in the light of the judgment of the Apex court in H.C.L. Comnet when there is diminution in the value of assets as contended

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 in respect of those assets cannot be taken into account. This view of the Tribunal has been confirmed by the Bombay High Court in the above judgment. Therefore, 9 the first substantial question of law held in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 9. Hence, following the aforesaid judgments, the first substantial question of law is answered

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

9 6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The relevant extract of Section 115JB, which deals with special provisions for payment of tax by certain companies as it was in existence at the relevant time, reads as under: 115JB. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this

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