THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

depreciation only after 01.04.1998, which was by the amendment in Section 32 of the Act. 25. In the present case, there is no dispute about the fact that know-how was acquired on 01.03.1998, which was prior to 01.04.1998. It is also not disputed that payment for acquiring such know-how was made only in instalments after 01.04.1998. The question

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD.,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

depreciation only after 01.04.1998, which was by the amendment in Section 32 of the Act. 25. In the present case, there is no dispute about the fact that know-how was acquired on 01.03.1998, which was prior to 01.04.1998. It is also not disputed that payment for acquiring such know-how was made only in instalments after 01.04.1998. The question

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR SPORTS PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals are disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, depreciation at the rate of 25% on the amount of Rs.37,75,29,600/- which comes to Rs.9,43,82,400/- was allowed and the claim for depreciation was disallowed in respect of balance amount of Rs.28,31,47,200

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GMR SPORTS PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals are disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, depreciation at the rate of 25% on the amount of Rs.37,75,29,600/- which comes to Rs.9,43,82,400/- was allowed and the claim for depreciation was disallowed in respect of balance amount of Rs.28,31,47,200

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR SPORTS PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals are disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, depreciation at the rate of 25% on the amount of Rs.37,75,29,600/- which comes to Rs.9,43,82,400/- was allowed and the claim for depreciation was disallowed in respect of balance amount of Rs.28,31,47,200

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

depreciation under section 32 on repairs and maintenance for AY 2008-09, AY 2009-10 and AY 2010-11?" - 11 - 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant – assessee submitted that the Tribunal erred in setting aside and restoring the issue of disallowance of collection charges under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act pertaining to Passenger Service Fee (Security Component

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

depreciation under section 32 on repairs and maintenance for AY 2008-09, AY 2009-10 and AY 2010-11?" - 11 - 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant – assessee submitted that the Tribunal erred in setting aside and restoring the issue of disallowance of collection charges under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act pertaining to Passenger Service Fee (Security Component

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

depreciation under section 32 on repairs and maintenance for AY 2008-09, AY 2009-10 and AY 2010-11?" - 11 - 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant – assessee submitted that the Tribunal erred in setting aside and restoring the issue of disallowance of collection charges under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act pertaining to Passenger Service Fee (Security Component

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

depreciation under section 32 on repairs and maintenance for AY 2008-09, AY 2009-10 and AY 2010-11?" - 11 - 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant – assessee submitted that the Tribunal erred in setting aside and restoring the issue of disallowance of collection charges under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act pertaining to Passenger Service Fee (Security Component

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

depreciation under section 32 on repairs and maintenance for AY 2008-09, AY 2009-10 and AY 2010-11?" - 11 - 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant – assessee submitted that the Tribunal erred in setting aside and restoring the issue of disallowance of collection charges under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act pertaining to Passenger Service Fee (Security Component

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

depreciation under section 32 on repairs and maintenance for AY 2008-09, AY 2009-10 and AY 2010-11?" - 11 - 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant – assessee submitted that the Tribunal erred in setting aside and restoring the issue of disallowance of collection charges under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act pertaining to Passenger Service Fee (Security Component

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, which was confirmed by the First Appellate Authority as well as the Tribunal. He further submitted that certain deductions can be made only on actual payment under Section 43-B of the Act. No document has been produced to show that the assessee had incurred business expenditure and no receipt has been produced to prove the said expenditure

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GOKALDAS IMAGES PVT.LTD

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

200/- was charged. The Assessing Officer also made an addition in respect of claim under Section 115JB of the Act and deleted portion of common expenses which were allocated. The set off of profits of 6 export oriented units against non export oriented unit's losses and brought forward unabsorbed depreciation

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

200 (SC): TC 15R.823, the apex Court observed that the conditions required to be fulfilled to be entitled to deduction were that the interest must have been paid on borrowings incurred for the purpose of the business. The conditions laid down were as follows: (a) that money (capital) must have been borrowed by the assessee, (b) that it must have

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

Bench: H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY,VINEET KOTHARI

depreciation value. The case laws relied by the appellant are all related to plant in different contexts and the same are not applicable in the instant appeals as they have direct bearing on the Date of Order: 23.03.2017 STRP Nos.100001, 100002, 100003 of 2017 M/s.J.K. Cement Works, Bagalkot Vs. The State of Karnataka 8 / 39 interpretation of the expression plant

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PRAVEEN V DODDANAVAR

Bench: SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR,VINEET KOTHARI

depreciation value. The case laws relied by the appellant are all related to plant in different contexts and the same are not applicable in the instant appeals as they have direct bearing on the Date of Order: 23.03.2017 STRP Nos.100001, 100002, 100003 of 2017 M/s.J.K. Cement Works, Bagalkot Vs. The State of Karnataka 8 / 39 interpretation of the expression plant

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

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

depreciation value. The case laws relied by the appellant are all related to plant in different contexts and the same are not applicable in the instant appeals as they have direct bearing on the Date of Order: 23.03.2017 STRP Nos.100001, 100002, 100003 of 2017 M/s.J.K. Cement Works, Bagalkot Vs. The State of Karnataka 8 / 39 interpretation of the expression plant

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

200/- as income by filing the revised return of income on 08.12.2000 for the assessment year 2000-2001, declaring the total income of Rs.10,40,100/-. 3. Likewise in I.T.A.2565/2005, the assessee had filed the return of income for the assessment year 2000-2001 declaring total income of Rs.1,49,250/-. The assessee during the course of survey declared Rs.17