THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT PADMAVATHY

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO

200/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised returns on 11-11-1999 declaring the income of Rs.13,83,616/-. The income declared consists of income from property, capital gain and income from other sources. The Assessing Officer selected the returns filed by the assessee for scrutiny. The assessee has claimed deduction under Section 54EA of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee, laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession. Explanation. - For the removal of doubts

M/S. KARNATAKA INSTRADE CORPORATION LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

capital gain earned by selling of the cement factory was assessed for the assessment years 2004-05 and 2006-07. The department has accepted the same. However, the Tribunal disallowed the said 23 expenditure holding that the assessee had closed the business in the year 1995 itself and no document has been shown that they had incurred any expenditure during

M/S. EVERGREEN HARDWARE STORES vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF

Appeal is allowed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,UMESH M ADIGA

1 Business Transfer Agreement 2 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) I.T.A No.201/2017 5 (ii) addition under Section 45(4) with regard to: (a) land at Adugodi Rs.54,89,677/- (b) Building Rs.68,86,826; (iii) disallowance of premium on Insurance Policy of Rs.3,33,333/-. 4. Re-disallowance of Rs.53,367/- under Section 14A of the IT Act. Shri

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ENNOBLE CONSTRUCTION

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,P.KRISHNA BHAT

1) section 37, which has the following text: “Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in section 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee) laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD.,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

capital asset, depreciation was allowed on the amount spent on transfer of know-how. Intangible assets, such as know-how, patent rights etc., were included for depreciation only after 01.04.1998, which was by the amendment in Section 32 of the Act. 25. In the present case, there is no dispute about the fact that know-how was acquired

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

capital asset, depreciation was allowed on the amount spent on transfer of know-how. Intangible assets, such as know-how, patent rights etc., were included for depreciation only after 01.04.1998, which was by the amendment in Section 32 of the Act. 25. In the present case, there is no dispute about the fact that know-how was acquired

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD.,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

capital asset, depreciation was allowed on the amount spent on transfer of know-how. Intangible assets, such as know-how, patent rights etc., were included for depreciation only after 01.04.1998, which was by the amendment in Section 32 of the Act. 25. In the present case, there is no dispute about the fact that know-how was acquired

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD.,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

capital asset, depreciation was allowed on the amount spent on transfer of know-how. Intangible assets, such as know-how, patent rights etc., were included for depreciation only after 01.04.1998, which was by the amendment in Section 32 of the Act. 25. In the present case, there is no dispute about the fact that know-how was acquired

DEVON PLANTATIONS AND INDUSTRIES LTD., vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal is disposed of with the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

1), C.R. BUILDING QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BENGALURU-560001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV., FOR R1 & R2) - - - THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC. 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 17.11.2017 PASSED IN ITA NO.1940/BANG/2016 (ANNEXURE-G), FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, PRAYING

DR SYED ANWAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Appeal is allowed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

200%. Feeling aggrieved, assessee challenged both orders passed by the CIT(A) (order dated January 27, 2011 and August 16, 2011) before the ITAT. By the impugned common order, the ITAT has dismissed assessee's appeals. Hence, these appeals. 1 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 5 - ITA.421/2014 4. Sri.A.Shankar, learned Senior Advocate mainly contended • That M/s.Oberoi, M/s.Janson and two other

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S ING VYSYA BANK LTD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

capital asset. It merely enhances the productivity or the efficiency and therefore, it has to be treated as a Revenue expenditure. 8. We may record that in Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax5 has held as follows: " 7. The mere circumstance that the depreciation rate is spelt out in the Schedule to the Income

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

capital items and specifications thereof are laid down by the Government/Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS). As stated above, PSF is levied under Rule 88 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 and covers security component as well as facilitation. While the fee is collected by the licensee of the airports, i.e., the airport operator, through the airlines, the security component thereof

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

capital items and specifications thereof are laid down by the Government/Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS). As stated above, PSF is levied under Rule 88 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 and covers security component as well as facilitation. While the fee is collected by the licensee of the airports, i.e., the airport operator, through the airlines, the security component thereof

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

capital items and specifications thereof are laid down by the Government/Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS). As stated above, PSF is levied under Rule 88 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 and covers security component as well as facilitation. While the fee is collected by the licensee of the airports, i.e., the airport operator, through the airlines, the security component thereof

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

capital items and specifications thereof are laid down by the Government/Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS). As stated above, PSF is levied under Rule 88 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 and covers security component as well as facilitation. While the fee is collected by the licensee of the airports, i.e., the airport operator, through the airlines, the security component thereof

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.,

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

capital items and specifications thereof are laid down by the Government/Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS). As stated above, PSF is levied under Rule 88 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 and covers security component as well as facilitation. While the fee is collected by the licensee of the airports, i.e., the airport operator, through the airlines, the security component thereof

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.,

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

capital items and specifications thereof are laid down by the Government/Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS). As stated above, PSF is levied under Rule 88 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 and covers security component as well as facilitation. While the fee is collected by the licensee of the airports, i.e., the airport operator, through the airlines, the security component thereof