M/S BIESEE MANUFACTURING CO PVT LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

depreciation and provisions for bad and doubtful debts? V. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in refusing to recall its order to consider the ground on treating Technical services and software testing services as a separate & independent function when the same is closely linked with the manufacturing activity? VI. Whether

M/S. BIESSE MANUFACTURING CO PVT LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

depreciation and provisions for bad and doubtful debts? V. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in refusing to recall its order to consider the ground on treating Technical services and software testing services as a separate & independent function when the same is closely linked with the manufacturing activity? VI. Whether

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CYBER PARK DEVELOPMENT

In the result, the appeal fails

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 263 of the Act initiated proceedings on the ground that Revenue Audit Objection was raised in case of assessee with regard to depreciation of Rs.75,27,156

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:

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 the assessment should be completed within the prescribed time limit and unless the total income

M/S DIFFUSION ENGINEERS LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

156 (KAR)] 7. The learned counsel appearing for the revenue supported the order passed by the Tribunal and relied on the Judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs Drilcos (India) Pvt. Ltd. [(2004) 266 ITR 12] and the Judgment of the Apex Court in Drilcos (India) Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner of Income

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

156 taxmann.com 664 (Kar)]. According to him, the Revenue’s SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the said judgment has been dismissed. He also relied upon the following judgments: i. Bharti Cellular Ltd. -Vs.- CIT [(2024) 160 taxmann.com 12 (SC)]; ii. Bharti Airtel Ltd. -Vs.- DCIT [(2014) 52 taxmann.com 31 (Karnataka)] (affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

depreciation penalty is not leviable. The additions in assessment proceedings will not automatically lead to inference of levying penalty. This Court in the case of GUJAMGADI reported in 290 ITR 168, has held that every addition to income by the Income Tax Officer will not 57 automatically attract levy of penalty. Similar view has also been taken by this Court

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

depreciation, it ‘crms (a i’s that t’it 9rc,cg3dure (icOptLd his hit ir.t o,nc un rlcpriruneru ftt i xtzirurj .zn)qr “LUU’V 1.4 .Ji,_. j%; c ‘ iion l.eu GIL u_’ ic’,S;, citLd 11W’ Lfl%i t Oil the. utaN” ii-Le ii i tqitally