THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION & TRA vs. JOY PARTNERSHIP MINING CENTRE

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

73 or section 74 or sub-section (3) of section 74A. (4) Every company to which this section applies, shall furnish a report in the prescribed form from an accountant as defined in the Explanation below sub-section (2) of section 288, certifying that the book profit has been computed in accordance with the provisions 9 of this section along

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ITC LIMITED

Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI,HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ

Section 32 of the Act 1961, held it to be a “license”. In the present set of facts the question of nomination or transfer of license is not involved. Even at the time of execution of the operating license agreement in question no amount was paid by ITC to ELEL as cost of acquisition of license. 19. M/S ELEL

PRINCIPAL COMM OF INCOME TAX, ASANSOL vs. M/S EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and it is dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was claimed by providing the relevant depreciation schedule which was given as annexure to the computation of total income in all the three years. In this regard the tribunal noted the depreciation chart at Page No. 3 read with Page Nos. 73

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EPCOS INDIA PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

depreciation loss beyond the period of eight years in contravention to the amendment made in sub-section 2 of Section 32 of the Income Tax Act introduced by the Finance Act, 1996 with effect from 1st April, 1997 ? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal erred in law in upholding the order

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4, KOLKATA vs. M/S. RELIANCE CHEMOTEX INDUSTRIES LTD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

section? (iv) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal has erred in law as well as in fact and the impugned order is perverse in confirming the order of the CIT (Appeals) thereby deleting the addition of Rs.3,73,78,133/- 2 on account of commission to foreign and Indian agent by holding that