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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

32 of the Income Tax Act providing for depreciation for computation of income derived from business or profession is not applicable. However, the income of the Trust is required to be computed under section 11 on commercial principles after providing for allowance for normal depreciation and deduction thereof from gross income of the Trust. Date of Judgment

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

Section 194J of the Act. Therefore, an amount of Rs.65,32,000/- was disallowed by invoking Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. On the very

Commissioner of Income Tax-2, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 28Th February 2024. Appearance: Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate Mr. Somak Basu, Advocate … For The Appellant. Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Advocate Mr. Anurag Roy, Advocate Ms. Oindrila Ghosal, Advocate … For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Somak Basu, Learned Counsel For The Appellant Assessee & Vipul Kundalia, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Respondent. 2. This Appeal Was Admitted By This Court By Order Dated 19.08.2011 On Four Substantial Questions Of Law. Learned Counsel For The Appellant Has Stated That The Appellant Does Not Want To Press The Substantial

32) Hon’ble Supreme Court again explained the provisions of Section 14A of the Act 1961, in the matter and held as under: 17 “31. The aforesaid discussion and the cited judgements advise this Court to conclude that the proportionate disallowance

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultral Market Committee,

Appeal is dismissed

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

disallowed under PRERNA JOSHI 2025.01.29 13:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CEA-60-2011 (O&M) 3 Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11A of the Act, 1944. Further, penalty to the tune of `2,88,779/- under Section 11 AC of the Act, 1944 read with Rule

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s Mohan Milk Line Private Limited,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowances made under Sections 32, 40(a) (ia), 40A(3), 43B, etc. of the Act and other specific disallowances, related

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

disallowance is made only for this year. Since business income has to be as stated in section 29 by granting all deductions provided under sections 30 to 43D which includes depreciation under section 32

Commissioner of Income Tax-2, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

32 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. Main cases This order shall dispose of two income tax appeals i.e. ITA No. 407 of 2011 and ITA No. 33 of 2012 as the issue involved in both the DIVYANSHI 2023.03.03 14:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/order

THE PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. L SURYAKANTHAM, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

disallowance made by appellate authority under Section 80JJA of the Act by relying on its earlier order in case of assessee itself when said earlier order has not reached finality and even when the appellate authority rightly rejected said claim as deduction cannot be given in respect of additional wages paid on employment of new workmen during the previous year

COMR. OF IT HYD vs. M/S NEERAJ PETRO CHEMICALS LTD HYD

The appeal is partly allowed

disallowance of interest of Rs.9,88,740/- being alleged accruing liability of interest in pursuance to the order of this Hon’ble Court in respect of the excess fund received by the assessee company?” 7. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides. Insofar as question no.1 raised in T.A. No.382/2000, which is similar to the question

The Commissioner of Income Tax - Central vs. M/s. Himagiri Biotech Pvt. Ltd.,

Section 36 (1) (iii) regarding advance of borrowed funds, to its sister concern?; (2) Did the ITAT fall into error in holding that the sum of `25,04,385/- brought to tax by the AO on the interest free deposit of ` 1,75,50,000/- was not sustainable?; (3) Is the ITAT’s order- that the assessee’s revised

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

Section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on block of assets on which 100% depreciation has been prescribed and thus disallowing

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. J Charan Kumar [HUF]

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: J. UMA DEVI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

disallowed in terms contemplated by Explanation 1 forming part of Section 37. 21. Appearing for the respondent assessee, Mr. Vohra, learned senior counsel submitted that it would be wholly incorrect to view the Bar Council of India Rules as amounting to a prohibition imposed by law and thus fall within the ken of Explanation 1. Mr. Vohra submitted that

The Commissioner of Income Tax -1 vs. R.S. Sudheesh

disallowed the claim. As regards advances given for acquisition of Revenue items amounting to Rs.2,32,93,575/- the Assessing Officer held that the claim is not allowable 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

32. To subscribe or contribute or otherwise to assist or to guarantee money to charitable, benevolent, scientific, Page 47 of 96 C/TAXAP/627/2015 JUDGMENT national, public, or any other useful institutions in their objects or purposes or for any exhibitions; 33. To appoint any Directors or Managers of any subsidiary company or of any other Company in which this Company

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions0 vs. Kalinga Cultural Trust

In the result, we do not find any

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

disallowed the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 10B of the Act. 5. The Assessing Officer inter alia held that assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 10B of the Act only after verification and the contention of the assessee that old machinery from FFIPL was transferred to it only in April 2007 does not deserve acceptance

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5 vs. M/s. VBC Industries Limited

In the result, we do not find any

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

disallowed the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 10B of the Act. 5. The Assessing Officer inter alia held that assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 10B of the Act only after verification and the contention of the assessee that old machinery from FFIPL was transferred to it only in April 2007 does not deserve acceptance

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

32,670/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1) and was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued. The assessee had taken premises on lease for a period of three years. The assessee claimed expenditure of Rs.89,23,817/- on account of leasehold improvements as revenue expenditure in the computation of income

The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/s Vaishnavi Educational Society

In the result, this Cross Objection is allowed and the suit is

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

32 of his deposition that he had not, at any time, obtained any Identity Card from the Owners and Sri.Rafi, as DW2, conceded that he had not even seen the same. This, therefore, certainly probabilises the RFA 554/15 & CON. CASES 53 allegation of the Owners, as available from the testimony of PW1, that the then SRO was also acting illegally