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

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 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

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S MIND TREE LTD

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 10B of the Act, is to be computed without setting off of brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation

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

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

depreciation amount of Rs.4,26,23,711/-. 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

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

depreciation under Section 32 of the Act on such software. It is also pointed out that the intent of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is to ensure prevention of revenue leakage on foreign payments as recovery of tax from non resident payees was difficult. With regard to the claim of set off of STP unit losses

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MPHASIS LTD

The appeal is dismissed accordingly

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

section 10B deduction by following the decision of this Hon’ble High Court in the case of CIT v/s Tata Elxsi and even when the recomputation done by the assessing authority is in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 8. It is submitted that the Tribunal erred in setting aside the disallowance of depreciation

SMT. PUNEETHA @ PUNEETHA B. A. vs. SRI. D. RAVI

The appeal is dismissed accordingly

Bench: R DEVDAS

section 10B deduction by following the decision of this Hon’ble High Court in the case of CIT v/s Tata Elxsi and even when the recomputation done by the assessing authority is in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 8. It is submitted that the Tribunal erred in setting aside the disallowance of depreciation

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S.MINERAL ENTERPRISES LTD

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

Section 10B should be computed in the above manner following the judgment of this Court in the case of TATA Elaxsi, which has not become final since the SLP preferred by Revenue is pending before Apex Court on this issue? (4) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal justified in law in holding that

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S BIOCON LTD.,

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

depreciation of non 10B unit cannot be set off against the income of the 4 10B unit without taking into consideration the amendment to section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MIND TREE LTD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

10B of the Act, is to be computed without setting off of brought 3 forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation without taking into consideration the amendment to Section

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5 vs. M/S NOVELL SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PVT.LTD.

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

10B(1)(e)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules nowhere provides to exclude the depreciation as it will materially affect the adjustments and therefore, the same cannot be excluded. With regard to second substantial question of law it is argued that assessee has not determined the expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income and Assessing Authority has rightly held that

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SASKEN

Appeals are dismissed at the stage of admission

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),S.G.PANDIT

depreciation etc. commencing from the year 2001-02 on completion of the period of tax holiday also virtually works as a deduction which has to be worked out at a future point of time, namely, after the expiry of period of tax holiday. The absence of any reference to deduction under Section 10A in Chapter

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GOKALDAS IMAGES PVT.LTD

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

depreciation was also not allowed. 3. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 25.02.2013 inter alia held that advance of Rs.53.77 Crores given to M/s Hinduja Relators Pvt. Ltd. is only out of commercial expediency and can be considered as advance for business purpose. It was further held that

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SYNDICATE BANK

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

depreciation on securities (iv) floating rate notes of London branch (v) DICGC loans (vi) suits filed accounts (vii) miscellaneous provision cannot be added back in accordance with Explanation of Section 115JA of the Act in the light of the judgment of the Apex court in H.C.L. Comnet when there is diminution in the value of assets as contended