M/S UDAYA SOUHARDA CREDIT CO-OP SOCIETY LTD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, Writ appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

depreciation in the following year and deeming it to be part of that allowance ; the effect of deeming it to be part of that allowance is that it falls in the following year within Clause (vi) and has to be deducted as allowance.”” 14. In the case of State of Maharashtra V/s. Laljit Rajshi Shah and Others [(2000) 2

M/S SWABHIMANI SOUHARDA CREDIT CO OPERATIVE LTD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (ITO) WARD-5(2)(3)

In the result, Writ appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

depreciation in the following year and deeming it to be part of that allowance ; the effect of deeming it to be part of that allowance is that it falls in the following year within Clause (vi) and has to be deducted as allowance.”” 14. In the case of State of Maharashtra V/s. Laljit Rajshi Shah and Others [(2000) 2

M/S SWABHIMANI SOUHARDA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE LTD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (ITO) WARD-5(2)(3

In the result, Writ appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

depreciation in the following year and deeming it to be part of that allowance ; the effect of deeming it to be part of that allowance is that it falls in the following year within Clause (vi) and has to be deducted as allowance.”” 14. In the case of State of Maharashtra V/s. Laljit Rajshi Shah and Others [(2000) 2

M/S SRI VARUN SOUHARDA CREDIT CO OP LTD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, Writ appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

depreciation in the following year and deeming it to be part of that allowance ; the effect of deeming it to be part of that allowance is that it falls in the following year within Clause (vi) and has to be deducted as allowance.”” 14. In the case of State of Maharashtra V/s. Laljit Rajshi Shah and Others [(2000) 2

M/S UDAYA SOUHARDA CREDIT CO OP SOCIETY LTD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, Writ appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

depreciation in the following year and deeming it to be part of that allowance ; the effect of deeming it to be part of that allowance is that it falls in the following year within Clause (vi) and has to be deducted as allowance.”” 14. In the case of State of Maharashtra V/s. Laljit Rajshi Shah and Others [(2000) 2

M/S. MARMON FOOD AND BEVERAGE TECHNOLOGIES INDIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

depreciation for each of the relevant assessment years. (7) The provisions of sub-section (8) and sub-section (10) of section 80IA shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the undertaking referred to in this section as they apply for the purposes of the undertaking referred to in section 80-IA. (7A) Where any undertaking

M/S. MARMON FOOD AND BEVERAGE TECHNOLOGIES INDIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

depreciation for each of the relevant assessment years. (7) The provisions of sub-section (8) and sub-section (10) of section 80IA shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the undertaking referred to in this section as they apply for the purposes of the undertaking referred to in section 80-IA. (7A) Where any undertaking

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S.GE INDIA TECHNOLOGY

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

depreciation for each of the relevant assessment years. (7) The provisions of sub-section (8) and sub-section (10) of section 80IA shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the undertaking referred to in this section as they apply for the purposes of the undertaking referred to in section 80-IA. (7A) Where any undertaking

M/S. MARMON FOOD AND BEVERAGE TECHNOLOGIES INDIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

depreciation for each of the relevant assessment years. (7) The provisions of sub-section (8) and sub-section (10) of section 80IA shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the undertaking referred to in this section as they apply for the purposes of the undertaking referred to in section 80-IA. (7A) Where any undertaking

M/S. MARMON FOOD AND BEVERAGE TECHNOLOGIES INDIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

depreciation for each of the relevant assessment years. (7) The provisions of sub-section (8) and sub-section (10) of section 80IA shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the undertaking referred to in this section as they apply for the purposes of the undertaking referred to in section 80-IA. (7A) Where any undertaking

M/S. MARMON FOOD AND BEVERAGE TECHNOLOGIES INDIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

depreciation for each of the relevant assessment years. (7) The provisions of sub-section (8) and sub-section (10) of section 80IA shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the undertaking referred to in this section as they apply for the purposes of the undertaking referred to in section 80-IA. (7A) Where any undertaking

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S.GE INDIA TECHNOLOGY

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

depreciation for each of the relevant assessment years. (7) The provisions of sub-section (8) and sub-section (10) of section 80IA shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the undertaking referred to in this section as they apply for the purposes of the undertaking referred to in section 80-IA. (7A) Where any undertaking

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 under this Act has been computed; (ca) where a return of income has not been furnished by the assessee or a return of income has been furnished by him and on the basis of information or document received from the prescribed income-tax authority, under sub- section (2) of section 133C, it is noticed

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

15 Ordinary shares of M/s. Hindustan Motors Limited on 05/03/1962 for `3,17,400/- and the said shares were sold through another broker for `2,94,300/- on 29/03/1962 and thus the Assessee incurred a loss of `23,100/- for the said year, the learned Tribunal held that though the said loss in sale and purchase of the shares could

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. M/S. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.I.ARUN

2(15) of the Act is not applicable to the case of the assessee. The contention that the Tribunal has misinterpreted the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of India Trade Promotion Organization (Supra) is misconceived. It is also submitted that the substantial question of law involved in this appeal

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KODAVA SAMAJA

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.VEERAPPA,N.KUMAR

Depreciation 4295569 5177126 Excess of Income over Expenditure 6361403 8254493 TOTAL 37820941 44031674 INCOME Rs. By Rentals & Other income 7304192 7007477 By Fee & Other Collections 22835294 26852374 By Bar Section Sales 3011239 3038677 By Sports, Games & Functions Collections 999582 902417 By Guest Room & Roof Garden Rent 836480 976365 By grant from Govt. of Karnataka - 300000 By grant from Kodava Samaja

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

M/S J K CEMENT WORKS vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY,VINEET KOTHARI

15. On an earlier occasion, another Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Ashok Iron Works Private Limited, Industrial Estate, Udyambag, Belgaum, 2014 (78) Kar.L.J. 376 (HC) (DB), even allowed the input tax credit in respect of the consumables used in manufacturing of finished goods, explaining the provisions of Section 11 of the KVAT

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PRAVEEN V DODDANAVAR

Bench: SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR,VINEET KOTHARI

15. On an earlier occasion, another Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Ashok Iron Works Private Limited, Industrial Estate, Udyambag, Belgaum, 2014 (78) Kar.L.J. 376 (HC) (DB), even allowed the input tax credit in respect of the consumables used in manufacturing of finished goods, explaining the provisions of Section 11 of the KVAT

THE BAILHONGAL URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.ABDUL NAZEER,P.S.DINESH KUMAR

15. On an earlier occasion, another Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Ashok Iron Works Private Limited, Industrial Estate, Udyambag, Belgaum, 2014 (78) Kar.L.J. 376 (HC) (DB), even allowed the input tax credit in respect of the consumables used in manufacturing of finished goods, explaining the provisions of Section 11 of the KVAT