THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GULBARGA vs. M/S MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

D G M E N T A batch of appeals where different facets of Section 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are involved, were placed before us. Therefore, we heard all the learned counsel appearing in the batch of cases, considered all the arguments addressed and interpreted Section 271 in its different facets and have laid down

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

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

AZIM PREMJI TRUSTEE COMPANY PVT LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

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

d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 20184-15 (Annexure-‘A’). (ii) Quashing the impugned notice dated: 28.07.2022 bearing ITBA/AST/M/148_1/2022- 23/1044223868(1) issued by Respondent No.1 under Section 148 of the Income –tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2014-15(Annexure-‘B’); (iii) Declaring that Section 56(2) (vii) (c) of the Income

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S NIRANI SUGARS LTD.,

In the result, the impugned orders passed by

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,P.G.M.PATIL

depreciation has to be filed along with the return of income filed under sub- section (1) of Section 139 of the Act. Admittedly, in the instant case, the assessee has not filed the return of income within the time limit prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Act, therefore, the Tribunal grossly erred in holding that the assessee is entitled

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S NIRANI SUGARS LTD.,

In the result, the impugned orders passed by

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,P.G.M.PATIL

depreciation has to be filed along with the return of income filed under sub- section (1) of Section 139 of the Act. Admittedly, in the instant case, the assessee has not filed the return of income within the time limit prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Act, therefore, the Tribunal grossly erred in holding that the assessee is entitled

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI N LEELA KUMAR

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

11 - unabsorbed depreciation under sub-section (2) of section 32; Provided that in computing deductions under Chapter VI-A for the purposes of the said aggregation, effect shall be given to set off of brought forward losses under Chapter VI or unabsorbed depreciation under sub-section (2) of section 32; (b) of a firm, returned income and total income assessed

COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX vs. OHIO UNIVERSITY CHRIST COLLEGE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

depreciation and deduction thereof from the gross income of the trust. Income derived from the trust property has also got to be computed on commercial principles and if commercial principles are applied, then adjustment of expenses incurred by the trust for charitable and religious purposes in the earlier years against the income earned by the trust in the subsequent year

PR.COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SACKHUMVIT TRUST

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 11 (1) (d) and 15% of income set apart in earlier assessment year cannot be construed as income of ht current year and 15% set apart out of the current year income is also excluded from income available for application?” 3. This Court in case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Pune v. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Date of Judgment

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

11 t t ml’ t I’C(iLlll c(;rtn’117p1(zu-u i n a hue a nçjh( m I by 1 at a 1 z y ii t J(![i(’Fj. 1 y’iiii.td - fJ’p0 a ,Y1)QTt . Ti (Ifl ]‘‘au d ‘he c&7MI tTtc

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. ANJUMAN-E-ISLAM

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 11 (1) (d) and 15% of income set apart in earlier assessment year cannot be construed as income of ht current year and 15% set apart out of the current year income is also excluded from income available for application?” 3. This Court in case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Pune v. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

11 on commercial principles after providing for allowance for normal depreciation and deduction thereof from gross income of the Trust. In view of the aforestated Judgment of the Bombay High Court, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department.” 18. The Judgment in Escorts Limited (supra) was rendered

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

11 on commercial principles after providing for allowance for normal depreciation and deduction thereof from gross income of the Trust. In view of the aforestated Judgment of the Bombay High Court, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department.” 18. The Judgment in Escorts Limited (supra) was rendered

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI ADICHUNCHUNGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

11 on commercial principles after providing for allowance for normal depreciation and deduction thereof from gross income of the Trust. In view of the aforestated Judgment of the Bombay High Court, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department.” 18. The Judgment in Escorts Limited (supra) was rendered

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

11 on commercial principles after providing for allowance for normal depreciation and deduction thereof from gross income of the Trust. In view of the aforestated Judgment of the Bombay High Court, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department.” 18. The Judgment in Escorts Limited (supra) was rendered

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

11 on commercial principles after providing for allowance for normal depreciation and deduction thereof from gross income of the Trust. In view of the aforestated Judgment of the Bombay High Court, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department.” 18. The Judgment in Escorts Limited (supra) was rendered

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

11 on commercial principles after providing for allowance for normal depreciation and deduction thereof from gross income of the Trust. In view of the aforestated Judgment of the Bombay High Court, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department.” 18. The Judgment in Escorts Limited (supra) was rendered

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

11 on commercial principles after providing for allowance for normal depreciation and deduction thereof from gross income of the Trust. In view of the aforestated Judgment of the Bombay High Court, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department.” 18. The Judgment in Escorts Limited (supra) was rendered

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

In the result, all the appeals are

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

11 on commercial principles after providing for allowance for normal depreciation and deduction thereof from gross income of the Trust. In view of the aforestated Judgment of the Bombay High Court, we answer question No. 1 in the 12 affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department.” 18. The Judgment in Escorts Limited (supra) was rendered

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

Bench: H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY,VINEET KOTHARI

D E R Mr.V.R.Desai, Mr.Atul K.Alur, Mr.N.P.Vivek Mehta & Mrs.J.Tejavathi Advocates for petitioner. Mr.M.Kumar, Addl.Govt. Advocate for respondent. 1. The petitioner assessee, M/s.J.K.Cement Works, Muddapur, Mudhol Taluk, Bagalkot District, Karnataka, has filed these Revision Petitions under Section 65 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short ‘KVAT Act’) raising a question of law for consideration by this Court, being