THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INDIA HERITAGE FOUNDATION

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Depreciation) Expenditure as per Income and Expenditure Account-Donation Less: Capital Expenditure 8,51,352 38,94,805 48,97,84,885 3,07,77,395 45,90,07,490 Deduction under Chapter VIA u/s 80IB(10) 573,968,569 Taxable Income NIL 10. Thus, from perusal of the order passed by the Assessing Officer, it is evident that

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

depreciation under Section 32 of the Act. It is also submitted that aforesaid payment was made towards purchase of software was in the nature of royalty in terms of Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and since, no TDS was deduction under Section 195 of the Act on the aforesaid payment, therefore, disallowance under Section

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

depreciation under Section 32 of the Act. It is also submitted that aforesaid payment was made towards purchase of software was in the nature of royalty in terms of Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and since, no TDS was deduction under Section 195 of the Act on the aforesaid payment, therefore, disallowance under Section

PR. COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD.,

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

depreciation under Section 32 of the Act. It is also submitted that aforesaid payment was made towards purchase of software was in the nature of royalty in terms of Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and since, no TDS was deduction under Section 195 of the Act on the aforesaid payment, therefore, disallowance under Section

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 WIPRO LTD

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

10(2)(xv) of the I.T.Act? in paragraph three of the judgment observed thus: 20 “3.Considering the matter apart from the authorities, it seems to us impossible that the expenditure could be revenue expenditure. It was clearly not incurred for the purpose of carrying on the concern but it was incurred in setting up the concern with a greater advantage

M/S. MARMON FOOD AND BEVERAGE TECHNOLOGIES INDIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

depreciation for each of the relevant assessment years. (7) The provisions of sub-section (8) and sub-section (10) of section 80IA shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the undertaking referred to in this section as they apply for the purposes of the undertaking referred to in section 80-IA. (7A) Where any undertaking

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S.GE INDIA TECHNOLOGY

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

depreciation for each of the relevant assessment years. (7) The provisions of sub-section (8) and sub-section (10) of section 80IA shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the undertaking referred to in this section as they apply for the purposes of the undertaking referred to in section 80-IA. (7A) Where any undertaking

M/S. MARMON FOOD AND BEVERAGE TECHNOLOGIES INDIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

depreciation for each of the relevant assessment years. (7) The provisions of sub-section (8) and sub-section (10) of section 80IA shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the undertaking referred to in this section as they apply for the purposes of the undertaking referred to in section 80-IA. (7A) Where any undertaking

M/S. MARMON FOOD AND BEVERAGE TECHNOLOGIES INDIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

depreciation for each of the relevant assessment years. (7) The provisions of sub-section (8) and sub-section (10) of section 80IA shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the undertaking referred to in this section as they apply for the purposes of the undertaking referred to in section 80-IA. (7A) Where any undertaking

M/S. MARMON FOOD AND BEVERAGE TECHNOLOGIES INDIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

depreciation for each of the relevant assessment years. (7) The provisions of sub-section (8) and sub-section (10) of section 80IA shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the undertaking referred to in this section as they apply for the purposes of the undertaking referred to in section 80-IA. (7A) Where any undertaking

M/S. MARMON FOOD AND BEVERAGE TECHNOLOGIES INDIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

depreciation for each of the relevant assessment years. (7) The provisions of sub-section (8) and sub-section (10) of section 80IA shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the undertaking referred to in this section as they apply for the purposes of the undertaking referred to in section 80-IA. (7A) Where any undertaking

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S.GE INDIA TECHNOLOGY

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

depreciation for each of the relevant assessment years. (7) The provisions of sub-section (8) and sub-section (10) of section 80IA shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the undertaking referred to in this section as they apply for the purposes of the undertaking referred to in section 80-IA. (7A) Where any undertaking

M/S KILARA POWER PVT. LTD., vs. THE INCOME -TAX OFFICER

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

10 (other than the provisions contained in clause (38) thereof) or section 11 or section 12 apply; or (g) the amount of depreciation

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S WIPRO LIMITED

In the result, the appeal is disposed of in terms

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

38 of the judgment, the division bench of this court has considered the issue of royalty. Therefore, the claim on depreciation relating to software has rightly been allowed in favour of the assessee. It is further submitted that the issue with regard to set off of losses of units claiming deduction under Section 10A/10AA of the Act is squarely covered

M/S J K CEMENT WORKS vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY,VINEET KOTHARI

10. In deciding whether a ‘building’ or a structure is a plant, the functional test has to be applied as indicated in the said decisions. If the ‘building’ is an apparatus or tool used by the Assessee for carrying on the business or manufacturing activity, then it would be part of the ‘plant’. If on the other hand

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PRAVEEN V DODDANAVAR

Bench: SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR,VINEET KOTHARI

10. In deciding whether a ‘building’ or a structure is a plant, the functional test has to be applied as indicated in the said decisions. If the ‘building’ is an apparatus or tool used by the Assessee for carrying on the business or manufacturing activity, then it would be part of the ‘plant’. If on the other hand

THE BAILHONGAL URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.ABDUL NAZEER,P.S.DINESH KUMAR

10. In deciding whether a ‘building’ or a structure is a plant, the functional test has to be applied as indicated in the said decisions. If the ‘building’ is an apparatus or tool used by the Assessee for carrying on the business or manufacturing activity, then it would be part of the ‘plant’. If on the other hand