Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Kokivenkateswara Reddy AND others,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

HOUSING PVT.LTD ...... Respondent Through: Mr. M.S. Syali, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arta Trana Panda and Ms. Gargi Sethee, Advocates. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 5 of 36 J U D G M E N T Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.: 1. These are 11 appeals under Section 260-A of the Income

M/SVISWARUPA BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS P LTD/. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD/3(I) HYDERABAD

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,T.AMARNATH GOUD

depreciation on building, and maintenance. The Assessing Officer (AO), on consideration of the accounts and the legal position, treated the rental income as “income from house property

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 :-

house property’ and loss of Rs.2,19,28,436/- under the head “profit or gain from business or profession”. 4. On 07.11.2002, the assessee filed a revised computation of income pursuant to the letter of the ACIT, Mumbai dated 16.08.2002 in which he disclosed a loss of Rs.5,67,61,657/- which included interest of Rs.3,63,33,221/- actually

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Sri N.Sai Baba Naidu

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

house property”. The Tribunal found that the letting out to these entities consisted of the space, fittings and fixtures, air conditioning plant, ceiling lights, furniture and fixtures etc. The Tribunal eventually held as follows: “5.9 From the table, it will be further seen that leases to Hutchison and Proton Links consist of the space, fittings and fixtures, air-conditioning plant

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

property should be allowed. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx The depreciation if it is not allowed as a necessary deduction for computing the income from the charitable institutions, then there is no way to preserve the corpus ofthe trust for derivingthe income. The Board also appears to have understood the " income " u/s. 11(1) in its commercial sense. The relevant portion of the Circular

Shri Maneklal Agarwal vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are allowed and

Bench: A RAMALINGESWARA RAO,DILIP B. BHOSALE

houses over here. This has resulted in tremendous increase and escalation of property prices in Jammu. It is a fact of common knowledge that even when prices of real estate in rest of the country had stabilized and depreciated

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

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 the AO was satisfied

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

house property, interest on securities, capital gains, or other sources, the word `income’ should be understood in its Date of Judgment 14-08-2018 I.T.A.No.346/2015 Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s Academy of Liberal Education 17/21 commercial sense, i.e., book income, after adding back any appropriations or applications thereof towards the purposes of the trust or otherwise

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s Pitti Laminations Ltd.,

In the result, M.A.C.A.No

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

HOUSE, GANESAMANGALAM, VATANAPPILLY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT GARDEN APARTMENTS 21(OLD NO 10) PYCROFTS GARDEN ROAD, CHENNAI 600006 BY ADV SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN RESPONDENT/APPELLANT: NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., KOLLANNUR BUILDING, PALACE ROAD, THRISSUR BY ADV SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH THIS CROSS OBJECTION/CROSS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.10.2021, ALONG WITH MACA.821/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/s Padmapriya Real Estates AND Financiers

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment passed by

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

property broker. The negotiation was made through Nandulal Sahu and the consideration of the sale deed was paid to seller by Nandulal Sahu. He admitted that on various occasions, the person have 8 usually get the sale deed registered in the name of their father, brother, wife husband and others. 16. PW-5, Praveen Kumar Gupta is the Branch Manager

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri P.Sarveswara Rao

Appeals are partly allowed, in view of the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

House of Lords that it had nothing to do with the trading of the company. In the case before us, payments were made only after the industries have been set up. Payments are not being made for the purpose of setting up of the industries. But the package of incentives were given to the industries to run more profitably

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

The appeal is disposed of

property held for charitable purposes. The Tribunal, therefore, set aside the order passed under Section 263 of the Act and allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee. Being aggrieved, the revenue has filed this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the Tribunal itself in paragraph 21 of the order had recorded the finding that invocation of Section

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

housing project as per the Revised Comprehensive Development Plan – Zoning of Land Use and Regulations approved by Government vide G.O. No.HUD 139 MNJ 94 DATED 5-1-1995. II. The First Party has offered to the Second Party or his nominees the Joint development rights of the above Survey Numbers which offer the Second Party has accepted in good faith

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

Depreciation 1,05,72,696 1,10,86,334 1,26,18,427 1,39,66,450 Total Expenditure 4,81,29,896 4,75,41,722 5,01,63,902 3,88,21,912 Profit for the year 2,53,21,438 2,09,87,242 62,58,319 836236 Add Balance brought forward