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. SRI N LEELA KUMAR

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

e) where any order of settlement has been made under sub-section (4) of section 245D on the basis of such order; (f) where an assessment of undisclosed income had been made earlier under clause (c) of section 158BC on the basis of such assessment. Explanation.—For the purposes of determination of undisclosed income,— (a) the total income or loss

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

Section 4(1)(b) of th Act Th rave not leried any tax on the scrric ransaction a sak it o d In \ t e’ fed a i h ;ai’fer )[ riqN In use o d ‘h t [ it vi i1 xi thc sse s e, niss aac ha enled th oft NirlichEir in i ea I o he uecn

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

13 with effect from 01/04/2017, the resident of the contracting State, viz.,India, can be taxed in the contracting State. 19. We have heard the learned counsels at length and given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and the case laws cited at the bar. 20. We are essentially called upon to decide the ambit, scope and parameters

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. 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

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

E SANMATHI INDRAKUMAR, ADV.,) AND M/S BPL SANYO FINANCE LTD NO.64, CHURCH STREET BANGALORE ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI S PARTHASARATHI, ADV.,) ® 2 THIS ITA IS FILED U/S.260A OF I.T.ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 28-10-2005 PASSED IN ITA NO.2171 / BANG / 2004 FOR THE YEAR 1997-98, PRAYING TO : I. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN

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

E R Indra Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-revenue, has brought to our attention the provisions of Section 80A of the Act, figuring in Chapter VI, and has submitted that in the wake of the deduction permitted under Chapter VIA, deduction permitted under Section 80C to 80U are to be allowed from the gross total income

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

13. It is contended on behalf of the Revenue that the fixtures such as, transformers, D.G.sets, elevators etc., were part of the building and income from letting out of building is chargeable to tax under the head income from house property. That the assessing officer had rightly disallowed the claim of the assessee for deduction on account of depreciation

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

13. It is contended on behalf of the Revenue that the fixtures such as, transformers, D.G.sets, elevators etc., were part of the building and income from letting out of building is chargeable to tax under the head income from house property. That the assessing officer had rightly disallowed the claim of the assessee for deduction on account of depreciation

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

13. It is contended on behalf of the Revenue that the fixtures such as, transformers, D.G.sets, elevators etc., were part of the building and income from letting out of building is chargeable to tax under the head income from house property. That the assessing officer had rightly disallowed the claim of the assessee for deduction on account of depreciation

M/S ING VYSYA BANK LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result appeal fails and it is hereby

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,AJIT J GUNJAL

E N T This Intra Court Appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 is by the first respondent –assessee preferred against order passed in W.P.No.12239/2008 whereunder the learned Single Judge has quashed the order passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission (Additional Bench), Chennai dated 04.02.2008 in so far as it relates to granting immunity

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

section 11(1).” 13. In CIT v. Trustee of H.E.H. The Nizam’s Supplemental Religious Date of Judgment 14 -08-2018 I.T.A.No.428/2018 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) & another Vs. M/s Anjuman-E-Islam 19/22 Endowment Trust (1981) 127 ITR 378, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has accepted the accounts maintained in respect of the trust in conformity with