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 :-

depreciation could not be restricted to 50% inasmuch as the entire block of assets were old and not acquired during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1999-2000. Therefore, disallowing

The Commissioner of Income tax III vs. M/s. Sree Sree Wines

Accordingly, the appeal (ITAT/75/2010) stands dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

depreciation has been prescribed and thus disallowing 50% depreciation on “Purely Temporary Erections” used for less than 180 days? iv) Whether

PROGREESIVE CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

disallowance under Section 4lB ol' the Act, depreciation on excavator and depreciation on tmc[s. Thereafter, uide the assessmenr order

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

disallowing depreciation which was being allowed for several years and to demand tax for one year after making disallowance. We feel

Andhra PRadesh Pradesh Fibres Limited vs. Assistant commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the order passed by the

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

Depreciation claimed by the assessee on pollution control equipment worth Rs.4,93,00,000/- was 6 disallowed and 80% interest

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II vs. M/S.TRANSPORT CORPORATION OF INDIA

In the result, we set aside the assessment orders, except to

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

disallowed depreciation I.T.Appeal No.133/14 & con.cases. -2- claimed. 2. The appeals filed before the Commissioner of Income- tax were disposed of deleting

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

disallowed the depreciation claimed on securities classified as ‘Held to Maturity’ and further held that the assessee had earned aggregate

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowance of depreciation in respect of the current category of investments. The aforesaid issue is connected with the additions made

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Smt. Pushpa Devi Tibrewala

Bench: U.DURGA PRASAD RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

disallowance of depreciation, which was dealt with in the order dated 17.03.2015 (In ITA 207/2015). Therefore, ITA 443/2016 does not survive

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

In the result we do not find any merit in the appeal

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

disallowed and added back and depreciation towards furniture and fitting at the rate of 15% was allowed. The assessing officer

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

disallowed and confirmed in appeal on account of depreciation on guest house building and assets used in the guest on the basis

COMMR OF INCOME TAX HYD vs. M/S.TAHER ENGG CORP. SECBAD

Bench: The Commissioner (Appeals). Through Order, Dated 04.12.1991, The Commissioner Allowed The Appeal & It Was Held That The Applicant Is Entitled To Treat The Unabsorbed Depreciation As Loss. Thereupon, The Department Carried The Matter In Appeal By Filing Ita.No.728/Hyd/1992 Before The Tribunal. The Tribunal Allowed The Appeal Through Its Order, Dated 28.08.1995 & Took The View That The Unabsorbed Depreciation Cannot Be Treated As Loss For The Purpose Of Section 115-J Of The Act.

depreciation as loss. As a consequence thereof, he disallowed the unabsorbed loss of the earlier Assessment Years. Aggrieved by that

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. R SURYANARAYANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

disallowances of Rs.12,45,778/- on account of additional depreciation made by the assessing officer without citing any cogent reason

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. Nekkanti Sea Foods Limited

The appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

disallowed the claim by treating the entire expense as incurred on capital account. Even depreciation was not allowed. 5. The CIT (Appeals

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Margadarshi Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd.,

The appeal is dismissed

disallowed. Further Rs.56,650/- incurred on purchase of UPS held to be capitalized and depreciation was ordered to be charged

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. M/S QUALITY CARE INDIA LTD

Bench: A.SHANKAR NARAYANA,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

disallowance made by the AO, on the ground that the assessee has not claimed any depreciation on the interest capitalized

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

depreciation of Rs.17.06,58,039/- on software imported even though the assessing authority had rightly disallowed the expenditure under section