Search: depreciation

9 results for “depreciation”+ Deductionclear

Sorted by relevance

Key Topics

Section 40A(3)31 Section 14810 Section 143(3)8 Addition to Income7 Section 80P(2)(a)6 Disallowance6 Survey u/s 133A5 Deduction5 Section 133A4 Section 14A

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, SULTANPUR vs. M/S KANPUR KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 298/ALLD/2008[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi26 Sept 2023AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2000-01 Dcit, Vs M/S Baroda Up Bank Circle-1, (Earlier Known As Kanpur Kshatriya Gorakhpur. Gramin Bank & Since Amalgamated With Baroda Up Bank) Gorakhpur. Pan: Aabck0383Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Garg, Ca Revenue By : Shri Robin Chaudhary, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2023 Order Per B.R. Baskaran, Am: The Revenue Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order Dated 02.07.2008 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-Ii, Kanpur & It Relates To The Assessment Year 2000-01. The Only Ground Raised By The Revenue Reads As Under:- “That The Ld.Cit(Appeal) Ii, Kanpur Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Entire Income Of The Assesse As Exempt & Without Appreciating That The Addition By The Ao On The Points Of Depreciation, Gratuity, P.F., Penalty Provisions For Npa & Disallowance Of Share Capital Deposits Are Not Covered U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) Of The I.T. Act.” 2. We Have Heard The Parties & Perused The Record. The Assesse Was Earlier Known As Kanpur Kshatriya Gramin Bank. It Has Been Amalgamated Into Baroda U.P. Bank. The Assessee Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Declaring Nil Income After Claiming Deduction U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Act. The Ao Took The View That The Assessee Is Not Eligible For The Above-Said Deduction For The Reason That The Assessee Had Engaged Itself During The Year In Normal Banking Business. Accordingly, He Rejected The Claim For Deduction U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Act. The Ao Also Made Various Additions To The Business Income Returned By The Assessee. The Assessee Had Declared A Net Profit Of Rs.5.69 Crores & The Ao Computed Total Income At Rs.10.85 Crores.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Robin Chaudhary, CIT-DR

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, SULTANPUR vs. M/S KANPUR KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK, KANPUR

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, SULTANPUR vs. M/S KANPUR KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK, KANPUR

MOUSAMI CHOUDHURY,VARANASI vs. DY. CIT, RANGE - 02,, VARANASI

MOUSAMI CHOUDHURY,VARANASI vs. DY. CIT, RANGE - 2, VARANASI

ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, GORAKHPUR vs. BAJRANG BAHADUR SINGH, GORAKHPUR

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2 , GORAKHPUR vs. THE MAHABIR JUTE MILLS LIMITED, GORAKHPUR

THE MAHABIR JUTE MILLS LIMITED,GORAKHPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2 , GORAKHPUR

DCIT,, GORAKHPUR vs. M/S MAHABIR JITE MILLS, LTD., GORAKHPUR

THE MAHABIR JUTE MILLS LTD.,GORAKHPUR vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 01,, VARANASI vs. M/S RATANDEEP GOLD & DIAMOND PVT. LTD., CHANDAULI