THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - II vs. M/s. E.C.I. Engineering AND Construction Co. Ltd.,

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

setting off of brought 3 forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation without taking into consideration the amendment to Section 10B(1) w.e.f

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, vs. Mars TelecomSystems (P) Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed; (ca) where a return of income has not been furnished by the assessee or a return of income has been furnished by him and on the basis of information or document received from the prescribed income-tax authority, under sub-section (2) of section 133C, it is noticed

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Ascend Telecom Infrastructure Private Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

set off of loss and not excess expenditure or deficit? 3. This Court in case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Pune v. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona’ [2018] 89 taxmann.com 127 [SC] with regard to allowability and Depreciation

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

setting off the brought forward losses. In the course of assessment proceedings, assessing officer took the view that there was conceaiment of income by the assessee and elaborated upon the alleged nodu operurdi of the assessee. Foliowing a factual analpis, excess of Rs.2,73,A7)93.00 over the amolrnt declared by the assessee to its banker while availing financial credit

Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) vs. M/s. Yashoda Super Speciality Hospital

In the result, the appeal fails

loss of Rs.20,88,81,396/-. Subsequently, it filed a revised return on 31.10.2002 declaring the total income as ‘NIL’ after setting off the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

loss or the amount of depreciation which woul l be required to be set off against the profit I / 8 of the relevant

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

set out hereunder have been referred said to be arising out of the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench “A” (for short “the Tribunal), dated 03.07.1996 passed in I.T.A.No.520/Hyd/1991, for the assessment year 1990-1991 for the opinion of this Court. i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

losses under Chapter VI or tion under sub-section (2) of computing deductions under urposes of the said aggregation, to set off of brought forward VI or unabsorbed depreciation

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

depreciation is the setting aside, out of the revenue of an accounting period, the estimated amount by which the capital invested in the asset has expired during that period. It is the provision made for the loss

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s. Nav Bharat Enterprises Limited

set off the loss of the units in STP from other taxable business income even when the same is not permitted under provisions of IT Act? (2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal is right in law in allowing the assessee's claim 3 of depreciation

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

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: This

setting aside the computation made by the assessing authority in respect of section 10-AA by holding that if the expenditure on travel is excluded from both export turnover and total turnover, the effect remains the same, without appreciating the fact that the statute allows exclusion of such expenditure expressly only from the export turnover by way of specific definition

M/s.V.R.Farms Pvt Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

loss was caused to the revenue and, therefore, the question of compensation itself would not arise. It was also contended that the amendments to the said Explanation 1 after section 234B(1) and the Explanation after section 234C(1) were merely curative and clarificatory of the legal position that applied even before 01.04.2007. As regards the cases which involved

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 :-

losses in subsequent scrutiny assessments. This fact is also not disputed by the Assessing Officer that the interest liability was disputed with the banks and was settled during this year in a onetime settlement with the banks and thus the interest liability has 8 crystallized in this year. Though it was related to earlier years but the liability has crystallized

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

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

depreciation of Rs.35,15,609/-, against the current years income. The AO therefore, discarded the segment wise Profit & Loss Account of the assessee for the year ended 31.03.2008 (AY 2008-09), based on separate sets

The Commissioner of income Tax-II vs. M/s.Ideal Industrial Explosives Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

depreciation on the reduction that has been occasioned in the market value, which is the loss suffered by the assessee. However, in the subsequent year, if the market value exceeds the cost price and the same reaches Rs.105/-, the question is as to what is the addition to be made. Then, what is to be adopted is the cost price

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

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 to the profit and loss account), if any such amount

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

The appeal is disposed of

Loss Account Income as per Income and Expenditure Account 57,39,68,569 78,20,892 58,17,89,461 Less: 15% set apart for application to charitable or religious purpose Balance 85% to be applied 87,268,419 494,521,042 Less: Application of Income Expenses (excluding business activity and Depreciation

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

set aside? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in sustaining the disallowance of Rs.49,00,000/- being quality loss incurred by the appellant in respect of products manufactured at appellant's plant for Apollo Tyres Ltd. which were exported by Apollo Tyres Ltd. to Apollo International