PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 153A of the Act by - 15 - following the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT V/s. Lancy Constructions?” In ITA Nos.380/2018, 382/2018 to 385/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in allowing the depreciation

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 153A of the Act by - 15 - following the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT V/s. Lancy Constructions?” In ITA Nos.380/2018, 382/2018 to 385/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in allowing the depreciation

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 153A of the Act by - 15 - following the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT V/s. Lancy Constructions?” In ITA Nos.380/2018, 382/2018 to 385/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in allowing the depreciation

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 153A of the Act by - 15 - following the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT V/s. Lancy Constructions?” In ITA Nos.380/2018, 382/2018 to 385/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in allowing the depreciation

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 153A of the Act by - 15 - following the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT V/s. Lancy Constructions?” In ITA Nos.380/2018, 382/2018 to 385/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in allowing the depreciation

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 153A of the Act by - 15 - following the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT V/s. Lancy Constructions?” In ITA Nos.380/2018, 382/2018 to 385/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in allowing the depreciation

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 153A of the Act by - 15 - following the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT V/s. Lancy Constructions?” In ITA Nos.380/2018, 382/2018 to 385/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in allowing the depreciation

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 153A of the Act by - 15 - following the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT V/s. Lancy Constructions?” In ITA Nos.380/2018, 382/2018 to 385/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in allowing the 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

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

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

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 or deduction for such assessment year (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year). Explanation.—For the purposes of assessment or reassessment or recomputation under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment

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

depreciation on the leased assets as an operating lease and as such the assessee apparently sought benefits under both forms of the lease which was impermissible in law resulting in evasion of income and tax. This fact was noticed by assessing officer after completion of the assessment for - 12 - the assessment years upto 1997-98 and brought

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

153A of the Act for the assessment year under consideration disallowing the claim of the assessee under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act being the amount of collection charges retained by the airlines on collection - 9 - of passenger service fees amongst other disallowance. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Bengaluru

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

153A of the Act for the assessment year under consideration disallowing the claim of the assessee under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act being the amount of collection charges retained by the airlines on collection - 9 - of passenger service fees amongst other disallowance. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Bengaluru

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

153A of the Act for the assessment year under consideration disallowing the claim of the assessee under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act being the amount of collection charges retained by the airlines on collection - 9 - of passenger service fees amongst other disallowance. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Bengaluru

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.,

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

153A of the Act for the assessment year under consideration disallowing the claim of the assessee under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act being the amount of collection charges retained by the airlines on collection - 9 - of passenger service fees amongst other disallowance. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Bengaluru

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.,

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

153A of the Act for the assessment year under consideration disallowing the claim of the assessee under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act being the amount of collection charges retained by the airlines on collection - 9 - of passenger service fees amongst other disallowance. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Bengaluru