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

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

13 (2) The Assessing Officer shall, before issuing any notice under this section, record his reasons for doing so. Time limit for notice- 149.(1) No notice under section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year,— (a) if four years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the case falls under clause

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S BPL SANYO FINANCE LTD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is

Bench: The Tribunal Was Arising From The Order Dated 4Th June 2004 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Bangalore (For Short “The

13. It goes without saying that for applicability of section 271(1)(c), conditions stated therein must exist.” Therefore, it is obvious that it must be shown that the conditions under section 271(1)(c) must exist before the penalty is imposed. There can be no dispute that everything would depend upon the return filed because that is the only

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI N LEELA KUMAR

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

c) assessment under section 143 includes determination of income under sub-section (1) or sub-section (1B) of section 143.. (2) In computing the undisclosed income of the block period, the provisions of sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B and 69C shall, so far as may be, - 12 - apply and references to "financial year" in those sections shall be construed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MAKINO ASIA PVT LTD

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

Depreciation loss of Rs.607326/- is allowed to be carried forward”. 10. Thus the assessee was well aware that it was not entitled to the carry forward of business loss. In spite of the clear cut position of law and also having been in the know of things, the assessee preferred to wrongly claim the benefit of carry forward

M/S PADMINI PRODUCTS (P) LTD., vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the aforesaid

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

depreciation of buildings, machinery, plant or furniture, being tangible assets or know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, being intangible assets allowable to the predecessor and the successor in the case of succession referred to in clause (xiii), clause (xiiib) and clause (xiv) of section 47 or section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WIPRO LTD

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

depreciation? A-8. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the donations made to Khandesh Education Society do not attract the provisions of Section 40A(9) of the Act? 7 5. In ITA 133/07, the following two substantial questions of law arise for our consideration: A-9. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the stock transfers made

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

c) x x x x x (d) x x x x Explanation 1.- For the purposes of clauses (a) and (b) (1) x x x x x x x (2) x x x x x x x (i) x x x x x x (ii) for any other reason, then – (a) x x x x (b) in the case referred

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

c) x x x x x (d) x x x x Explanation 1.- For the purposes of clauses (a) and (b) (1) x x x x x x x (2) x x x x x x x (i) x x x x x x (ii) for any other reason, then – (a) x x x x (b) in the case referred

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

c) Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the contention of the appellant that proceedings under Section 153C ought to be initiated only for assessment years in respect of which the documents were found during the search? d) Whether the Tribunal was correct in upholding the validity of the order under Section 153C of the Act for the assessment year

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

c) Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the contention of the appellant that proceedings under Section 153C ought to be initiated only for assessment years in respect of which the documents were found during the search? d) Whether the Tribunal was correct in upholding the validity of the order under Section 153C of the Act for the assessment year

THE COMMISIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

c) Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the contention of the appellant that proceedings under Section 153C ought to be initiated only for assessment years in respect of which the documents were found during the search? d) Whether the Tribunal was correct in upholding the validity of the order under Section 153C of the Act for the assessment year

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

13 carried out by the appellant. The legal requirements in the mining industry had been floated. The evidence collected from the production details of production quantity taken from the records of M/s. R.K. Mining which was the raisin contractor. Further showed that there was a large amount of illegal production and said production is compared with the permitted value. 12.The

M/S J K INDUSTRIES LTD vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, all questions are answered against the

Bench: D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

depreciation of the earlier years and by setting off these amounts, if any, before arriving at the total income of the assessee. 12. The other point canvassed by Sri Shankar is relating to the amount which qualifies as the export incentives under sub-section (1) of Section 80HHC and for the purpose of computing the same as per the formula

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