THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KARNATAKA REDDY JANASANGHA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

144 of the Act denying exemption under Section 10(23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account of disallowance of depreciation

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

144 of the Act denying exemption under Section 10(23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account of disallowance of depreciation

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION (MEDICAL)

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

144 of the Act denying exemption under Section 10(23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account of disallowance of depreciation

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS vs. AL-AMEEN CHARITABLE FUND TRUST

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

144 of the Act denying exemption under Section 10(23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account of disallowance of depreciation

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

144 of the Act denying exemption under Section 10(23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account of disallowance of depreciation

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI ADICHUNCHUNGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

144 of the Act denying exemption under Section 10(23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account of disallowance of depreciation

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI N LEELA KUMAR

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

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 148 but assessments have

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

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

Section 144(C) of the Act of 1961 on 12.10.2012, wherein the assessing officer has disallowed the excess depreciation claimed

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:

144; therefore these terminologies have different import in different sections. In the light of this discussion, it is clear that the term “assessment” is used in section 153(1) to mean the entire process of assessment; section 153(2) uses the words, ‘assessment’, ‘reassessment’ or ‘recomputation’ but in respect of section 147 which deals with income escaping assessment; section

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

The appeal is dismissed accordingly

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

144(C)(13) by holding that the above profit was not eligible for deduction and hence, disallowed the claim of deduction under Section 10B of the Act. 4. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’ for short) as its objections were rejected by the DRP (Dispute Resolution Panel) and the Tribunal has allowed

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

The appeal is dismissed accordingly

Bench: R DEVDAS

144(C)(13) by holding that the above profit was not eligible for deduction and hence, disallowed the claim of deduction under Section 10B of the Act. 4. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’ for short) as its objections were rejected by the DRP (Dispute Resolution Panel) and the Tribunal has allowed

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S KIDS KEMP

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

depreciation was upheld. In order to invoke Section 154 of the Act, twin conditions are required to be satisfied namely that there has to be a mistake and such a mistake has to be apparent on record. It is settled in law that the detection of such a mistake does not require a search or thorough application of mind

SMT M. R. PRABHAVATHY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,E.S.INDIRESH

depreciation was upheld. In order to invoke Section 154 of the Act, twin conditions are required to be satisfied namely that there has to be a mistake and such a mistake has to be apparent on record. It is settled in law that the detection of such a mistake does not require a search or thorough application of mind

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS vs. ISKCON CHARITIES

In the result, we do not find any merit in these appeals

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

144 at any time after expiry of two years from the end of Assessment Year, in which income was first assessable. It is further submitted that the amendment incorporated by Finance Act, 2005 with effect from 01.04.2006 is not applicable to the fat situation of the case as the Assessment Years in question

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

144 or 147, reduced to the extent therein provided, the assessee is deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars thereof, unless he proves that the failure to return the correct income did not arise from any fraud or neglect on his part. The assessee is, therefore, by virtue of the notice under section

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(1) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee-Company entered into an agreement 4 of sale dated

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

144 C (5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Assessee Company preferred an appeal before the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), who disposed of the said appeal by the impugned Order dated 22/02/2017. Date of Judgment :23-07-2018 I.T.A.No.512/2017 M/s. Fidelity Business Services India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, & Anr. 7/86

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX LTU vs. M/S. CANARA BANK

The appeal stands disposed of as

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

Depreciation on assets leased to others under the provisions of the Act? 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside that the provisions of Section 115JB are not applicable to banking companies as no accounts are drawn up as per the requirement of Schedule