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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

92,500/- is added back to the income declared.” (emphasis supplied) 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

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

depreciation on guest house, etc. In the case of CIT vs. Jai Bharat Maruti Ltd. (2007) 212 CTR (Del>)250, the High Court has held that recording of satisfaction by AO is sine quo non for the purpose of initiating penalty under Section 271(1) (c). From the reading of the assessment order it is not clear that whether

Shri Maneklal Agarwal vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are allowed and

Bench: A RAMALINGESWARA RAO,DILIP B. BHOSALE

depreciation of value of property or even stabilization of property prices during the last three decades. 20 CFA Nos. 1/2005 & 2/2005 26. In these circumstances, grant of decree of specific performance in favour of the respondent when he has paid only a paltry sum of Rs.100 lacs to the appellants and has defaulted in payment of Rs.1.50 lacs within

Som Bhupal vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

92 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA Nos.444/2005 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Junior Standing Counsel for Revenue. Versus M/S BHUSHAN STEELS & STRIPS LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Kavita Jha, Ms. Roopali Gupta, Advocates. WITH ITA Nos.458/2005 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL ..... Appellant Through

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

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. 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-III vs. Sri N.Sai Baba Naidu

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

92,000/-. 3. The assessee filed an appeal to the CIT(Appeals) and reiterated the stand taken by him before the assessing officer. The CIT(Appeals) affirmed the order of the assessing officer and dismissed the assessee’s appeal. The assessee appealed further to the Tribunal in ITA No.4652/Del/2010. The Tribunal examined the issue in great detail in the light

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

section 2(15) is not correct. The comparative three years profit and loss account submitted by the assessee is as under : For the year ended on Particulars 31.03.2009 31.03.2008 31.03.2007 31.03.2006 31.03.2005 INCOME Dumping & 6,27,76,328 6,06,27,173 5,16,08,028 3,92,57,369 Page 8 of 96 C/TAXAP/627/2015 JUDGMENT Effluent Treatment Charges Other

The Commissioner of Income Tax-V vs. Smt.R.Amala Devi

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 144 of the Act only in cases of the contractors whose gross contractual receipts exceed rupees one crore and if total profit declared was less than 5% of gross contractual receipts. 6. It is submitted that the profit of the appellant for the accounting year in question was only Rs.7,92,508/-, which, in any case, was more than

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

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 5 vs. M/s Vijay Textiles Limited

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

depreciation relating to fixed assets acquired for the development and related expenses and the sale price of the undivided share in the land at the rate of Rs.150/- per square foot payable by the intending purchasers as per Article 6 hereof. 8.3 The amount payable to the First Party under Article 8.1 be paid together with the sale price

The Commissioner of Income Tax V vs. Smt. Ch. Uma

92 & 93 of 2014 Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2021 Bechu Kurian Thomas, J. This batch of appeals relates to the assessment years 2004-05 till 2009-10. The issues raised in all these appeals are similar if not identical and hence we heard these appeals together. Except in two appeals, the questions raised are all the same

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Ch.Veeraju AND co.

92 & 93 of 2014 Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2021 Bechu Kurian Thomas, J. This batch of appeals relates to the assessment years 2004-05 till 2009-10. The issues raised in all these appeals are similar if not identical and hence we heard these appeals together. Except in two appeals, the questions raised are all the same

Commissioner of Income Tax - VI vs. M/s. S.P. Steels

92 & 93 of 2014 Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2021 Bechu Kurian Thomas, J. This batch of appeals relates to the assessment years 2004-05 till 2009-10. The issues raised in all these appeals are similar if not identical and hence we heard these appeals together. Except in two appeals, the questions raised are all the same