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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 10(23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account of disallowance of depreciation by the Assessing

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 10(23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account of disallowance of depreciation by the Assessing

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 10(23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account of disallowance of depreciation by the Assessing

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS vs. AL-AMEEN CHARITABLE FUND TRUST

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 10(23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account of disallowance of depreciation by the Assessing

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 10(23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account of disallowance of depreciation by the Assessing

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

In the result, all the appeals are

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 10(23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account of disallowance of depreciation by the Assessing

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

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

10 in the case of a trust or institution for a previous year, if the provisions of the first proviso to clause (15) of section 2 become applicable in the case of such person in such previous year, whether or not the approval granted to such trust or institution or notification issued in respect of such trust or institution

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CHESLIND, TEXTILES LTD

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

23,711/-. The Commissioner of Income tax in his jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act was of the view that the same resulted in excess deduction allowed under Section 10B of the Act and incorrect determination of loss was carried forward. Therefore, he set-aside the said order and directed the Assessing Officer to re-compute

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WIPRO LTD

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 145A of the Income- tax Act which was inserted with effect from assessment year 1999-2000. The said provision states that the valuation of stock should include the amount of any tax duty, cess or fee - 94 - actually paid or incurred to bring the goods to its present location and condition. The Department has followed a consistent stand

M/S WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 145A of the Income- tax Act which was inserted with effect from assessment year 1999-2000. The said provision states that the valuation of stock should include the amount of any tax duty, cess or fee - 94 - actually paid or incurred to bring the goods to its present location and condition. The Department has followed a consistent stand

M/S SANKHLA POLYMERS (P) LTD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-12(2)

In the result, the appeal relating to the assessment

Bench: D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

10 or section 10A or section 10B or section 11 or section 12 apply, if any such amount is credited to the profit and loss account; or (iii) the amount of loss brought forward or unabsorbed depreciation, whichever is less as per books of account. Explanation – For the purposes of this clause – (a) the loss shall not include depreciation

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. ABB LTD

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

depreciation in respect of the same has to be allowed under Section 32 read with Section 43[3] of the Act. A reference has been made to the case of M.Ramnath Shenoy [ITA No.258/Bang.1997 dated 10.07.1997] and - 18 - observed that for the relevant assessment year 1995-96, the Tribunal accepted (after a detailed discussion) the contention of the assessee that

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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

10. Question No.1: This question relates to whether the respondent- assessee would be entitled to carry forward and set-off 11 of business losses even though, as per the Revenue, the voting power of the respondent had been reduced below 51% of the shareholding, and consequently voting power of the respondent Company had reduced to less than 51%. 11. Admittedly

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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

10. Question No.1: This question relates to whether the respondent- assessee would be entitled to carry forward and set-off 11 of business losses even though, as per the Revenue, the voting power of the respondent had been reduced below 51% of the shareholding, and consequently voting power of the respondent Company had reduced to less than 51%. 11. Admittedly

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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

10. Question No.1: This question relates to whether the respondent- assessee would be entitled to carry forward and set-off 11 of business losses even though, as per the Revenue, the voting power of the respondent had been reduced below 51% of the shareholding, and consequently voting power of the respondent Company had reduced to less than 51%. 11. Admittedly

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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

10. Question No.1: This question relates to whether the respondent- assessee would be entitled to carry forward and set-off 11 of business losses even though, as per the Revenue, the voting power of the respondent had been reduced below 51% of the shareholding, and consequently voting power of the respondent Company had reduced to less than 51%. 11. Admittedly

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WIPRO LTD

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

depreciation? A-8. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the donations made to Khandesh Education Society do not attract the provisions of Section 40A(9) of the Act? 7 5. In ITA 133/07, the following two substantial questions of law arise for our consideration: A-9. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the stock transfers made

M/S J K INDUSTRIES LTD vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, all questions are answered against the

Bench: D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

depreciation of the earlier years and by setting off these amounts, if any, before arriving at the total income of the assessee. 12. The other point canvassed by Sri Shankar is relating to the amount which qualifies as the export incentives under sub-section (1) of Section 80HHC and for the purpose of computing the same as per the formula