The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. M/s. Charminar Breweries Ltd.,

disallowing the claim of loss declared in the retum of income furnished by the assessee. Thus for all these reasons and as the assessee has produced suffrcient material justifying its claim it is held that the entire exercise done by the AO is based on surmises and conjectures and without any evidence. The claim of loss as per the return

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. K.VENKATESWARLU

Accordingly they are dismissed

Bench: V.ESWARAIAH,K.G.SHANKAR

loss carried forward or deduction or disallowance which on the basis of information available in such return was prima facie

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

carrying forward of the losses for being set off against the income of the charitable trust for the present Assessment Year, the controversy is covered by the judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) and another .vs. Ohio University Christ College rendered on 17.07.2018 in ITA.No.312/2016 and ITA No.313/2016, in which this Court held as under

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

carried forward depreciation relating to A. Y. 1994-95 of Rs. 193,70,11,434/-. The return was processed regular assessment was issued on 31.10.1996. During the course of assessment proceedings, the appellant company filed various detailed and submitted reply in response to the information called for by the AO from time to time. While replying to the detailed questionnaire

Commissioner of Income Tax [TDS] vs. The Executive Engineer

In the result, these appeals fail and are

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SEETHARAMA MURTI

carry on the tasks that the software in fact performs, would have fallen undoubtedly in the 4 [2018] 93 taxmann.com 432 (Delhi) 11 revenue stream. Taking these into account and the further circumstance that the software itself would have run its course or life span as it were, given that the earlier assessment year in question

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

disallowance. We feel the assessee should be allowed to write back the depreciation for this year and even for previous and then allow the same to be carried forward for application for subsequent years. It is for the assessee to write back depreciation and if Hi >- V II done the Assessing Officer will modify the assessment determining higher income

Sri Rajesh Rawtani vs. The Income Tax Officer

The appeals are disposed off in the above

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

disallowed the claim originally made under section 80G. The reasoning of these two lower authorities was that the claim was unsupported by any documentary proof with regard to the permissibility of the deduction and such being the case, relief of larger deduction as business expenditure could not be granted. 15. The Tribunal accepted the assessee’s argument and held that

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

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

disallowed the entire claim of Rs.1,48,89,090/- under section 10A of the Act. 5. The aforesaid addition was deleted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who observed that the respondent-assessee was maintaining separate accounts for STPI and non-STPI unit, and the Assessing Officer had not been able to point out a single entry in respect

NAVA BHARAT FERRO ALLOYS LTD. vs. THE DY.COMMI.OF INCOME TAX HYD.

carrying on the business of stevedoring, clearing and forwarding agents at Visakhapatnam Port. It has involved in the allied activities of handling of imported cargos, like fertilizers, sugar etc. on behalf of the importers/principals, namely, Indian Potash Ltd., and State Trading Corporation, by way of storage, packaging and dispatch of materials, according to instructions. In order to facilitate such activities

The Director of Income Tax, (Exemptions) vs. Royal Education Society

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

carry on the business of banking by Reserve Bank of India under Banking Regulation Act, 1949. The assessee filed the return of income under Section 143(1) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2007-08 on 31.10.2007 and declared total income of Rs.40,77,27,150/-. However, no order of assessment was passed under Section

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

forward 4,07,88,644 1,98,01,402 1,35,43,083 20,44,236 Balance carried to balance sheet 6,61,10,082 4,07,88,644 1,98,01,402 12,08,000 This case has been received on transfer from the Circle- 4, Ahmedabad, the folder for A.Y.2006-07 is not readily available and hence the data

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M.Venkata Krishna Mohan

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

forwarding and packaging expenses nad freight charges. (b). Unless otherwise specified by the Proprietor, the royality hereunder shall be paid to Hilton Rubbers Limited, S-21, Green Park Extension, i_e “” Delhi 110016, in India Rupees at half yearly intervals, within 60 days at the end of each calendar half year. 7(a). The User recognizes the Proprietor‟s title

Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Dredging Corporation of India Limited

The appeals are disposed of with directions as above

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

forward for cross-examination and vide order of 2nd December, 2010, injured had closed his evidence. A prayer was made on behalf of injured to permit him to lead additional evidence as his evidence by way of additional affidavit is already on record. Relevantly, no evidence has been led by the Insurer. In the facts and circumstances of this case