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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

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

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

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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

VI or unabsorbed 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

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. Biraj Kavar Galada

The appeals are disposed of

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 to Section 115JA of the Act in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in H.C.L. Comnet where is diminution in the value of assets as contended by the assessee

The Commissioner of Income Tax -V, vs. M/S Secunderabad Club

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

VI-A deductions on income which included income from other sources i.e. interest income amounting to Rs. 1,73,09,453/- instead of restricting the deduction to the extent of income from the profits and gains of business as has been prescribed in the provisions of section 80AB. This action of the assessee has resulted in under assessment of other

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

vi) Gold Deposit Bonds issued under the Gold Deposit Scheme, 1999 notified by the Central Government.” Section 2 (11): “block of assets” means a group of assets falling within a class of assets comprising- (a) ….. (b) Intangible assets, being know-how, patents, copyrights, trade-marks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, in respect

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

VI of the Companies Act, in place of the depreciation as claimed by the assessee, which is inconformity with the Rules. 6) Now, it is well settled by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Apollo Tyres Ltd., Vs. C.I.T., Kochi[1], that it is impermissible for the Assessing Officer to redraw the profit and loss account as long

THE PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [CENTRAL] HYDERABAD vs. M/S SREE NAGENDRA CONSTRUCTIONS, KHAMMAM

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: This

VI, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(1)(2) BENGALURU. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, ADV. A/W SRI T.N.C.SRIDHAR, ADV.) AND : M/s SUBEX LTD., RMZ ECOWORLD, DEVARABISANAHALLI, OUTER RING ROAD, BANGALORE-560 037. PAN: AABCS 9255R. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI CHYTHANYA K.K., ADV.) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri P.Sarveswara Rao

Appeals are partly allowed, in view of the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

VI-A of Income-tax is necessary at this state as the issue concerning assessee‟s claim is clearly covered by section 43-B of the Act.” 5. On appeal, the CIT(A) allowed the assessee’s claim. The CIT(A) held that the amount of sales tax collected as incentive for setting up industries in backward areas

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

Section 110 of the Act, if an AOP is chargeable to tax at maximum marginal rate then the share of profits in the hands of the members is not chargeable to tax at all. 19. Now against the above contours of taxability of an AOP, we have to see the facts of the case before us. The first