PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

143(3) r/w Section 153A of the Act by following the judgment of this Hon’ble High Court in the case of M/s Lancy Constructions? In ITA Nos.354/2018 and 355/2018: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating material is necessary condition for proceedings

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

143(3) r/w Section 153A of the Act by following the judgment of this Hon’ble High Court in the case of M/s Lancy Constructions? In ITA Nos.354/2018 and 355/2018: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating material is necessary condition for proceedings

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

143(3) r/w Section 153A of the Act by following the judgment of this Hon’ble High Court in the case of M/s Lancy Constructions? In ITA Nos.354/2018 and 355/2018: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating material is necessary condition for proceedings

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

143(3) r/w Section 153A of the Act by following the judgment of this Hon’ble High Court in the case of M/s Lancy Constructions? In ITA Nos.354/2018 and 355/2018: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating material is necessary condition for proceedings

THE PR. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

143(3) r/w Section 153A of the Act by following the judgment of this Hon’ble High Court in the case of M/s Lancy Constructions? In ITA Nos.354/2018 and 355/2018: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating material is necessary condition for proceedings

THE PR. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

143(3) r/w Section 153A of the Act by following the judgment of this Hon’ble High Court in the case of M/s Lancy Constructions? In ITA Nos.354/2018 and 355/2018: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating material is necessary condition for proceedings

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

143(3) r/w Section 153A of the Act by following the judgment of this Hon’ble High Court in the case of M/s Lancy Constructions? In ITA Nos.354/2018 and 355/2018: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating material is necessary condition for proceedings

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

143(3) r/w Section 153A of the Act by following the judgment of this Hon’ble High Court in the case of M/s Lancy Constructions? In ITA Nos.354/2018 and 355/2018: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating material is necessary condition for proceedings

THE PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

143(3) r/w Section 153A of the Act by following the judgment of this Hon’ble High Court in the case of M/s Lancy Constructions? In ITA Nos.354/2018 and 355/2018: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating material is necessary condition for proceedings

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 on Elevators, DG Set and other such items (for all assessment years) ii) Professional charges (for assessment year 2004-05) iii) Interest expenses (for assessment year 2004-05) iv) Disallowance of interest capitalized (for assessment years 2004-05 and 2006-07) - 13 - 7. That in respect of the assessment year 2004- 05, the order under Section 143

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 on Elevators, DG Set and other such items (for all assessment years) ii) Professional charges (for assessment year 2004-05) iii) Interest expenses (for assessment year 2004-05) iv) Disallowance of interest capitalized (for assessment years 2004-05 and 2006-07) - 13 - 7. That in respect of the assessment year 2004- 05, the order under Section 143

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 on Elevators, DG Set and other such items (for all assessment years) ii) Professional charges (for assessment year 2004-05) iii) Interest expenses (for assessment year 2004-05) iv) Disallowance of interest capitalized (for assessment years 2004-05 and 2006-07) - 13 - 7. That in respect of the assessment year 2004- 05, the order under Section 143

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI N LEELA KUMAR

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

143 or section 144 or section 147 have been concluded prior to the date of commencement of the search or the date of requisition, on the basis of such assessments; - 9 - (b) where returns of income have been filed under section 139 or in response to a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 or section

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

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

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

Section 263 of the Act as under: “The assessee company is engaged in the manufacturing and sale of transmission line hardware and accessories, surge arrestors etc. The assessee had filed return of income on 30.11.2015 declaring total income of Rs.7,35,02,720/-. The scrutiny assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the - 22 - ITA No.53

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

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

depreciation claimed on networking equipments. 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru, thereafter issued a notice under Section 263 of the Act of 1961 on 5.3.2015 and called upon the assessee to explain as to why the assessment order passed by the assessing officer under Section 143

DELL INDIA PVT LTD vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF vs. THE KARNATAKA STATE

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),S.G.PANDIT

Section 143(2) of the Act, for both the assessment years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. The respondent-assessee made available necessary information before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer, based on the material on record, disallowed the claim of depreciation