THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI ADICHUNCHUNGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

addition of income was made on account of disallowance of depreciation by the Assessing Officer. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KARNATAKA REDDY JANASANGHA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

addition of income was made on account of disallowance of depreciation by the Assessing Officer. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

addition of income was made on account of disallowance of depreciation by the Assessing Officer. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

addition of income was made on account of disallowance of depreciation by the Assessing Officer. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION (MEDICAL)

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

addition of income was made on account of disallowance of depreciation by the Assessing Officer. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

addition of income was made on account of disallowance of depreciation by the Assessing Officer. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI SRI ADICHUNCHUNAGIRI SHIKSHANA TRUST

In the result, all the appeals are

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

addition of income was made on account of disallowance of depreciation by the Assessing Officer. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee

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

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

depreciation relating to the assessment year 1956-57 as against the total income of assessment year 1965-66. Further, the Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax V/S Kapila Textiles Private Limited (supra) held that the benefit under sub-Section(2) of Section 32 of the Act is not subject to the condition that the business must

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

In the result appeal fails and it is hereby

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,AJIT J GUNJAL

additional income and the tax payable thereon. Maintainability of the application filed by the assessee was also upheld. 5. Being aggrieved by the order dated 04.03.2008 passed by Settlement Commission, revenue preferred writ petition before this court in W.P.12239/2008 and this court after considering the rival contentions formulated four points for its determination which reads as under: - 6 - 1. Whether

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S RITTAL INDIA PVT LTD.,

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act’) has been given to the assessee. 2. The undisputed facts of this case are that the respondent-assessee was an existing industrial undertaking, when it had acquired and installed new plant and machinery in the financial year 2006-07 and claimed 50% of additional 20% depreciation

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CISCO SYSTEMS

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

depreciation at a higher rate. *** *** *** 39. The gist of the decision of the apex court in the case of Shaan Finance (P) Ltd. is that where the business of the assessee consists of hiring out machinery and/ or where the income derived by the assessee from the hiring of such machinery is business income, the assessee must be considered

M/S FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

additional ground raised by the assessee in seeking modification of the order of assessment passed by the Income-tax Officer.” 55. In the case of Hukumchand Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central, Bombay [1967] 63 ITR 232, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Rules 12 and 27 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1946 are not exhaustive

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S V S LAD and SONS

In the result, the second

Bench: N.S.SANJAY GOWDA,ALOK ARADHE

addition was rightly made on the depreciation claimed by the assessee in respect of land obtained on lease for mining purposes. The Commissioner also up held the disallowance of the depreciation on the wind mills. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner of Income

M/S. JSW STEEL PROCESSING CENTRES LTD., vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

The appeal is allowed;

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

Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench - 3 - ITA No. 479 of 2018 the relevant year without affording an opportunity to the Appellant to establish the purchase and installation of new plant and machinery for eligibility to make the claim under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act? " 2. Brief facts of the case are, assessee claimed additional depreciation

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

additions to the income of the assessee. Copies of the assessment orders for the aforesaid assessment years, all dated 31/12/2012, are produced as Annexures-A1, A2 and A3 respectively, in ITA.Nos.410-412/2014. 6. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer for the relevant assessment years are in respect of the following: i) Depreciation

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

additions to the income of the assessee. Copies of the assessment orders for the aforesaid assessment years, all dated 31/12/2012, are produced as Annexures-A1, A2 and A3 respectively, in ITA.Nos.410-412/2014. 6. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer for the relevant assessment years are in respect of the following: i) Depreciation

THE COMMISIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

additions to the income of the assessee. Copies of the assessment orders for the aforesaid assessment years, all dated 31/12/2012, are produced as Annexures-A1, A2 and A3 respectively, in ITA.Nos.410-412/2014. 6. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer for the relevant assessment years are in respect of the following: i) Depreciation

SRI C M MAHADEVA S/O SRI MANCHE GOWDA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

addition he has spent Rs.10,270/- towards registration of the document on 25.7.2003. To examine the sources of investment, summons were issued. The assessee by mistake had stated that the date of purchase was in the year 2004-05. As such, notice u/s 143(2) was issued for scrutinizing the documents. The assessee produced copy of Registered Deed, where