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

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

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

2(30) of the MV Act must be read in consonance with sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 51 of the MV Act, 25 which were referred to by Mr. S. Ganesh, learned senior counsel for the assessee. The provisions read as follows: - “(4) No entry regarding the transfer of ownership of any motor vehicle which is held under

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

142(1) of the Act dated 30.07.2013 was issued to the assessee by which he was asked to file the return of income for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The assessee vide communication dated 03.09.2013 stated that the original return filed by him under Section 139(1) on 28.09.2012 be treated as return. The case was taken up for scrutiny

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

142; or (c) Has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty, - (i) Omitted 38 (ii) In the cases referred to in clause (b), in addition to any tax payable by him, a sum which shall not be less than one thousand rupees

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

depreciation has to be allowed, which has been rightly done so by the Tribunal. Substantial question of law No.1 is accordingly answered in favour of the assessee. 17. As far as the second question of law is concerned, the same relates to payment of interest of Rs.72.00 lakh on borrowed capital, as an allowable business expenditure. The contention

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

depreciation has to be allowed, which has been rightly done so by the Tribunal. Substantial question of law No.1 is accordingly answered in favour of the assessee. 17. As far as the second question of law is concerned, the same relates to payment of interest of Rs.72.00 lakh on borrowed capital, as an allowable business expenditure. The contention

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

depreciation has to be allowed, which has been rightly done so by the Tribunal. Substantial question of law No.1 is accordingly answered in favour of the assessee. 17. As far as the second question of law is concerned, the same relates to payment of interest of Rs.72.00 lakh on borrowed capital, as an allowable business expenditure. The contention

WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit Writ Petition No.20040/2019 (T-It) Between:

142(1) and it culminates with the issuance of the notice of demand u/s. 156. The making of the order of assessment is, therefore, an integral part of the process of assessment...” (iv) In CIT v. Purshottamdas T. Patel [1994] 209 ITR 52 (Guj), the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat has observed that 17 section 153 requires that

M/S. KARNATAKA INSTRADE CORPORATION LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

depreciation was not provided during the year on the assets since the Unit is dormant and there is no production during the said year. Notices were issued under Sections 143(2) and also 142

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 on intangible assets, which was not in accordance with Section 32(1) of the Act. Thereafter, a notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued. The assessee by a communication dated 17-02.2010 stated that return of income for Assessment Year 2005-06 already filed on 31.10.2005 be treated as return in response to the notice under Section

PR. COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD.,

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

2) and Section 142(1) of the Act were issued. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 27.03.2013 concluded the assessment by making certain additions and disallowed a sum of Rs.6,70,94,074/- in respect of depreciation

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

2) and Section 142(1) of the Act were issued. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 27.03.2013 concluded the assessment by making certain additions and disallowed a sum of Rs.6,70,94,074/- in respect of depreciation

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

2) and Section 142(1) of the Act were issued. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 27.03.2013 concluded the assessment by making certain additions and disallowed a sum of Rs.6,70,94,074/- in respect of depreciation

M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

depreciation. (5) Where, in a scheme of amalgamation, xxx asset.” Definitions of certain terms relevant to income from profits and gains of business or profession. 43. In sections 28 to 41 and in this section, unless the context otherwise requires— (1) "actual cost" means xxx section 47. (2) "paid" means actually xxx profession. (3) "plant" includes xxx fittings

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES PVT LTD

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act in respect of intangible assets of Rs.9,07,25,000/- when the same is not identical, and is based on adhoc estimate basis and not on actual cost as per Section 3 43(1) of the Act? 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the assessee

M/S N.M.D.C vs. THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING

Bench: R-1.

depreciation, which is not permissible under the Act. In any case, once we opine that the assessment order had merged with the order of CIT (A) passed on 28.6.2004, the limitation 16 for the purpose of Sub-section (7) of Section 154 is to be counted from this date.” 10. This Court has carefully gone through the aforesaid judgment

P ARVIND MAIYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): Provided that where an assessment under sub- section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall