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

HEWLETT PACKARD FINANCIAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

depreciation not being claimed by the appellant on the leased equipments. Per contra, the appellant has submitted that it is an integrated transaction and not two independent transactions to fasten the tax liability and as the integrated transaction is in 13 the course of import falls under the purview of Section 5(2) of the CST Act and has given

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI SRI ADICHUNCHUNAGIRI SHIKSHANA TRUST

In the result, all the appeals are

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

17. High Court of Bombay in the case of Institute of Banking (supra) after placing reliance on the Judgment of CIT vs Muniswarat Jain (1994 TLR 1084) on an identical issue, held:- “In that matter also, a similar argument, as in the present case, was advanced on behalf of the revenue, namely, that depreciation can be allowed as deduction only

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

17. High Court of Bombay in the case of Institute of Banking (supra) after placing reliance on the Judgment of CIT vs Muniswarat Jain (1994 TLR 1084) on an identical issue, held:- “In that matter also, a similar argument, as in the present case, was advanced on behalf of the revenue, namely, that depreciation can be allowed as deduction only

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

17. High Court of Bombay in the case of Institute of Banking (supra) after placing reliance on the Judgment of CIT vs Muniswarat Jain (1994 TLR 1084) on an identical issue, held:- “In that matter also, a similar argument, as in the present case, was advanced on behalf of the revenue, namely, that depreciation can be allowed as deduction only

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

17. High Court of Bombay in the case of Institute of Banking (supra) after placing reliance on the Judgment of CIT vs Muniswarat Jain (1994 TLR 1084) on an identical issue, held:- “In that matter also, a similar argument, as in the present case, was advanced on behalf of the revenue, namely, that depreciation can be allowed as deduction only

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

17. High Court of Bombay in the case of Institute of Banking (supra) after placing reliance on the Judgment of CIT vs Muniswarat Jain (1994 TLR 1084) on an identical issue, held:- “In that matter also, a similar argument, as in the present case, was advanced on behalf of the revenue, namely, that depreciation can be allowed as deduction only

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI ADICHUNCHUNGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

17. High Court of Bombay in the case of Institute of Banking (supra) after placing reliance on the Judgment of CIT vs Muniswarat Jain (1994 TLR 1084) on an identical issue, held:- “In that matter also, a similar argument, as in the present case, was advanced on behalf of the revenue, namely, that depreciation can be allowed as deduction only

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

17. High Court of Bombay in the case of Institute of Banking (supra) after placing reliance on the Judgment of CIT vs Muniswarat Jain (1994 TLR 1084) on an identical issue, held:- “In that matter also, a similar argument, as in the present case, was advanced on behalf of the revenue, namely, that depreciation can be allowed as deduction only

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

17. High Court of Bombay in the case of Institute of Banking (supra) after placing reliance on the Judgment of CIT vs Muniswarat Jain (1994 TLR 1084) on an identical issue, held:- “In that matter also, a similar argument, as in the present case, was advanced on behalf of the revenue, namely, that depreciation can be allowed as deduction only

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S NIRANI SUGARS LTD.,

In the result, the impugned orders passed by

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,P.G.M.PATIL

depreciation has to be filed along with the return of income filed under sub- section (1) of Section 139 of the Act. Admittedly, in the instant case, the assessee has not filed the return of income within the time limit prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Act, therefore, the Tribunal grossly erred in holding that the assessee is entitled

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S NIRANI SUGARS LTD.,

In the result, the impugned orders passed by

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,P.G.M.PATIL

depreciation has to be filed along with the return of income filed under sub- section (1) of Section 139 of the Act. Admittedly, in the instant case, the assessee has not filed the return of income within the time limit prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Act, therefore, the Tribunal grossly erred in holding that the assessee is entitled

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

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

5 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949) with a banking institution as referred to in sub-section (15) of section 45 of the said Act, sanctioned and brought into force by the Central Government under sub-section (7) of section 45 of that Act, of any asset by the banking company to the banking institution

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI N LEELA KUMAR

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

depreciation under sub-section (2) of section 32 shall not be set off against the undisclosed income determined in the block assessment under this Chapter, but may be carried forward for being set off in the regular assessments. 7. This chapter was introduced for the assessment of undisclosed income determined as a result of carrying out search under Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M./S WIPRO LIMITED

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

5 (vi) Whether in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal is correct in law in deleting the addition made by the assessing authority by merely placing reliance on it's own decision in the case of M/s Toyota Kirloskar Motors Pvt. Ltd in ITA No.20/Bang/2011 and 88/B/2011, without appreciating the fact that the said orders have

PR.COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SACKHUMVIT TRUST

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

d) and 15% of income set apart in earlier assessment year cannot be construed as income of ht current year and 15% set apart out of the current year income is also excluded from income available for application?” 3. This Court in case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Pune v. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Date of Judgment

M/S J K INDUSTRIES LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

D V SHYLENDRA KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B SREENIVASE GOWDA ITA No.1105 of 2006 BETWEEN: M/S. J K INDUSTRIES LTD. REP. BY ITS ASST. VICE PRESIDENT [COMMERCIAL] SRI. NARESH KUMAR MAHESHWARI KRS ROAD, METAGALLI MYSORE – 570 016 … APPELLANT [By Sri A. Shankar, Adv.,] AND: THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE – 1[1] SHILPASHREE BUILDING VISHWESHVARANAGAR MYSORE