ADC INDIA COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Bench: The Hon'Ble Dr.Justice Vineet Kothari

depreciation accordingly, has computed the net tax payable by the assessee company along with the interest and penalty in the impugned

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MAA COMMUNICATION BOZELL LTD

The appeal is allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

depreciation. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer concluded that BPL Sanyo Finance Ltd., is a party to such a bogus transaction and imposed 100% penalty

THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE vs. M/S SUNDARA INDUSTRIES (I) (P) LTD

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

depreciation on the amount representing countervailing duty in view of Explanation 9 to Section 43 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, introduced retrospectively with effect from 01.03.1994. However, the Original Authority proceeded to pass an order denying the Modvat credit besides imposing penalty

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.RYATARA SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMITHA

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: JYOTI MULIMANI,S.SUJATHA

depreciation of Rs.1,44,74,986/-. Thus, the Assessing Authority disallowed a sum of Rs.30,86,504/- and Rs.4,86,946/- being payment made to harvesters/transporters and vehicle hire charges and legal fees. The said order having reached finality, the Assessing Authority initiated penalty

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

penalty in respect of such illegal mining because the disallowance has been made by the assessing officer. Whereas representative of the assessee submitted that it is noted by the assessing officer that the assessee has not discharged its onus to prove that the entire expenses in respect of repairs and maintenance and depreciation

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

penalty and only condition required to be satisfied by the assessee is that assessee should have co-operated in the proceedings before the Settlement Commission. He would also contend that section 245H does not contemplate any explanation or evidence that requires to be offered by the applicant to the satisfaction of the Settlement Commission and as such he contends that

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MAKINO ASIA PVT LTD

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

penalty, which read thus:- “The assessee company had filed its original return of income on 31.10.2002. While filing this return, the assessee company was aware that the return filed for asst.year 98-99 was belated and thus it was not entitled to carry forward the business loss. The assessee company filed a revised return of income on 12/5/20003. In that

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

depreciation has to be allowed, which has been rightly done so by the Tribunal. Substantial question of law No.1 is accordingly answered in favour of the assessee. 17. As far as the second question of law is concerned, the same relates to payment of interest of Rs.72.00 lakh on borrowed capital, as an allowable business expenditure. The contention

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

depreciation has to be allowed, which has been rightly done so by the Tribunal. Substantial question of law No.1 is accordingly answered in favour of the assessee. 17. As far as the second question of law is concerned, the same relates to payment of interest of Rs.72.00 lakh on borrowed capital, as an allowable business expenditure. The contention

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

depreciation has to be allowed, which has been rightly done so by the Tribunal. Substantial question of law No.1 is accordingly answered in favour of the assessee. 17. As far as the second question of law is concerned, the same relates to payment of interest of Rs.72.00 lakh on borrowed capital, as an allowable business expenditure. The contention

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES PVT LTD

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act in respect of intangible assets of Rs.9,07,25,000/- when the same is not identical, and is based on adhoc estimate basis and not on actual cost as per Section 3 43(1) of the Act? 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the assessee

HEWLETT PACKARD FINANCIAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

depreciation not being claimed by the appellant on the leased equipments. Per contra, the appellant has submitted that it is an integrated transaction and not two independent transactions to fasten the tax liability and as the integrated transaction is in 13 the course of import falls under the purview of Section 5(2) of the CST Act and has given

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WEIZMANN HOMES LTD

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

penalty or late payment charges. The reason for denying the said benefit is that though the loan is advanced and repayable within 7 years, the loan has been repaid with interest before expiry of 5 years period. Therefore, Section 36(1)(viii) is not attracted. Secondly, it is contended that processing charges are collected in the course of normal business

M/S INDUS TOWERS LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

In the result, we pass the following order:

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR

penalty as no tax Is paid under the Act at all. That portion of the order Is illegal and requires to be set aside. He also contended, under the statute, a statutory appeal Is provided to the Appellate Commissioner against the• order passed by the Assessing Authority whose order can be challenged before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and therefore there

M/S MANYATA PROMOTERS PVT LTD vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, the writ petition is rejected

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice L Narayana Swamy Writ Petition No.56279 Of 2015 (Lb-Bbmp) Between: M/S.Manyata Promoters Pvt. Ltd., A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956 & Having Its Office At First Floor, Classic Court No.9/1, Richmond Road, Bangalore 560 025 Represented By Its Authorized Signatory, Mr.B S Mohan.

penalty. (9) During pendency of writ petitions (W P No.21079/2012 and connected matters) challenging category VIII, the respondents have decided to charge the rate of tax on the basis of Zones. The notification dated 21.12.2012 comes into effect from 1.4.2008. Category XIV takes into its fold those properties coming under Industrial Estates/Layout formed or approved by the Government which included

MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

Depreciation 13,09,37,839 Disallowance under section 14A of the IT Act 9,03,79,391 7 8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment orders, the Petitioner filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which were partly allowed in favour of the petitioner vide orders dated 08.03.2013 and 24.09.2014 respectively, for the aforesaid assessment years

MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

Depreciation 13,09,37,839 Disallowance under section 14A of the IT Act 9,03,79,391 7 8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment orders, the Petitioner filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which were partly allowed in favour of the petitioner vide orders dated 08.03.2013 and 24.09.2014 respectively, for the aforesaid assessment years

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.WINTAC LTD.,

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) and issued demand notice. The assessee being aggrieved by the order of assessment dated 30-03-2001 preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as ‘the First Appellate Authority’) challenging the same on various grounds. The First Appellate Authority after considering the matter in detail held that