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. 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 FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

119 ITR 872. The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court upholding the Order of the learned Single Judge in a Writ Petition in R.L. Rajghoria Vs. Income-Tax Officer [1977] 107 ITR 347 held that the word ‘thereon’ appearing in Section 33(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 akin to Section 254 (1) of the Income

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

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

119; or (d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the 21 jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person. (2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from

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

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

The appeal is dismissed accordingly

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

119 (Kol.), Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench “B‟, has taken a view that the printer and scanner are integral part of the computer system and are to be treated as computer for the purpose of allowing higher rate of depreciation, i.e., 60%. 9 3.2 The Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi “F” Bench in the case of Expeditors International (India

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

The appeal is dismissed accordingly

Bench: R DEVDAS

119 (Kol.), Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench “B‟, has taken a view that the printer and scanner are integral part of the computer system and are to be treated as computer for the purpose of allowing higher rate of depreciation, i.e., 60%. 9 3.2 The Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi “F” Bench in the case of Expeditors International (India

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PVT. LTD.,

Accordingly dispose of the appeal as allowed

Bench: ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,S RACHAIAH

119 taxmann.com 358 (Karnataka)]. 9. He has also stated, without prejudice and in any event, it is submitted that an order giving effect to the order under Section 263 is not passed, even as on date, to the best of the knowledge of the respondent. It is submitted that in terms of Section 153(3) of the Act, an order

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

2)(xv) of the 1922 Act. The said expression is wider than the expression "for the purpose of earning profits-Only where the 28 assessee himself is carrying on business, the expenditure incurred by him for the business could be allowed to be deducted, where the assessee is acting as an agent for a third party the expenses incurred

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR SPORTS PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals are disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act has to be allowed on the entire cost of franchise rights of Rs.3,36,00,000/- as against franchise fee installment paid during the particular year of Rs.33,60,000/- applicable to tax. It is also submitted that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had also upheld the aforesaid finding

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GMR SPORTS PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals are disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act has to be allowed on the entire cost of franchise rights of Rs.3,36,00,000/- as against franchise fee installment paid during the particular year of Rs.33,60,000/- applicable to tax. It is also submitted that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had also upheld the aforesaid finding

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR SPORTS PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals are disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act has to be allowed on the entire cost of franchise rights of Rs.3,36,00,000/- as against franchise fee installment paid during the particular year of Rs.33,60,000/- applicable to tax. It is also submitted that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had also upheld the aforesaid finding

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

2 1. 2.2 and 2.3 of Schedule-S. Once a ‘P2b gpfjJtoT i ptxmittecl t . .ç ,a$’ nI,t’ruçjur a jyr tjis_j_yjiejpçpt with rc%gg.cLt Uqnpnt ji g saacejnshi town at a jtitic’uiai hngj Jjrnjcq ‘jj Itt S - t Li sI’] A_ LictilLl ‘s ‘iii j tgpjfle’sju M - iJar i ‘i% op r4LOt iL. Lilt

SRI S S JYOTHI PRAKASH vs. THE ADDL COMMISSIONER

The appeal is allowed accordingly

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

2. In order to appreciate the controversy and then to address the question, we need to refer certain factual aspects. 3. The appellant is an individual mainly engaged in the transport business and running 3 proprietary concern on the name and style of “Shri. Shivalinga Transport” at Shimoga. He was also receiving remuneration in the capacity as partner