THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX LTU vs. M/S. CANARA BANK

The appeal stands disposed of as

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

112, JC ROAD, BENGALURU-560 002, PAN:AAACC 6106G …RESPONDENT (COMMON) (BY SRI. T.SURYANARAYANA, ADVOCATE) 2 IN I.T.A. NO.270/2018: THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 15/09/2017 PASSED IN ITA NO.1035/BANG/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010 VIDE ANNEXURE 'C' PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT

THE COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S CANARA BANK

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

112, JC ROAD BENGALURU – 560 002. PAN:AAACG106G. ...RESPONDENT (BY SHRI T. SURYANARAYANA, ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING)) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 17.11.2017 PASSED IN ITA NO.843/Bang/2017, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012- 2013. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, S.SUJATHA J., DELIVERED

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CANARA BANK

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

112, J.C. ROAD BANGALORE PAN: AAACC 6106G. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T. SURYANARAYANA, ADV.) - - - THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 11.12.2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.765/BANG/2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97, PRAYING TO: (I) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE. (II) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE

THE COMMISSINER OF INCOME -TAX, vs. M/S CANARA BANK

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

112, J.C. ROAD BANGALORE PAN: AAACC 6106G. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T. SURYANARAYANA RAO, ADV.) - - - THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 11-12-2015 2 PASSED IN ITA NO.768/BANG/2011, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000, PRAYING TO: I. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE. II. ALLOW THE APPEAL

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 5 vs. M/S NCR CORPORATION (INDIA) PVT LTD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

Section 37 of the Act. It was further held that ATMs are computers and therefore, assessee is eligible to depreciation of 60%. It was further held that even though the assessee had changed the method of revenue recognition, however, he is entitled to change the method of accounting as the same has no impact on the revenue. Accordingly, the appeal

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S NCR CORPORATION PVT LTD

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

Section 37 of the Act. It was further held that ATMs are computers and therefore, assessee is eligible to depreciation of 60%. It was further held that even though the assessee had changed the method of revenue recognition, however, he is entitled to change the method of accounting as the same has no impact on the revenue. Accordingly, the appeal

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME EXEMPTION vs. M/S CANARA BANK

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

112, CANARA BANK BUILDING J.C. ROAD BANGALORE - 560 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. …RESPONDENT THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN ITA NO.689/Bang/2024 DATED 30.07.2024 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17 ANNEXURE

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CANARA BANK

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

112, J.C.ROAD TOWN HALL BENGALURU-560 002. PAN-AAACC 6106G …RESPONDENT (BY SHRI. T.SURYANARAYANA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED:28/09/2018 PASSED IN ITA NO.1900/BANG/2017, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-2014 PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M./S WIPRO LIMITED

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

depreciation on motor cars was also 8 remitted to the Assessing Officer. In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee was partly allowed. In the aforesaid factual background, the revenue has approached this court. 3. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the tribunal has set aside the disallowance in respect of reimbursement of medical expenses granted

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- vs. DR. RANJAN PAI

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

112 (SC), 'WOOD CRAFT PRODUCTS LTD. VS. COMMISSIONEROF INCOME-TAX', (1993) 204 ITR 545 (CALCUTTA), 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS VS. ATHI V. RAMACHANDRA CHETTIAR', 52 ITR 96,'K.P.VARGHESE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER', 9 (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) as well as CIRCULAR NO.6/2014, CIRCULAR NO.05/2005 DATED 15.07.3005, CIRCULAR NO.1/2011 DATED 06.04.2011. 6. We have considered the submissions made

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

depreciation, it ‘crms (a i’s that t’it 9rc,cg3dure (icOptLd his hit ir.t o,nc un rlcpriruneru ftt i xtzirurj .zn)qr “LUU’V 1.4 .Ji,_. j%; c ‘ iion l.eu GIL u_’ ic’,S;, citLd 11W’ Lfl%i t Oil the. utaN” ii-Le ii i tqitally

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. SYNDICATE BANK

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

depreciation on valuation of investment portfolio is allowable by treating the investments held by the assessee bank as stock-in-trade once the RBI Master Circular read with CBDT Circular No.665 came into force”?. 5. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in accepting assessee’s claim that the assessee