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

SMT. GEETHA vs. SRI. BASAVARAJAPPA

Bench: N.ANANDA

depreciation allowed by the Assessing Officer confirmed by the Appellate Commissioner treating as a revenue expenditure? 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in alternatively holding that the assessee’s claim regarding expenditure is allowable under Section 36 (i) (iv) of the Income Tax Act even if the expenditure is held to be capital in nature? 10 7. Similar questions

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

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SUBEX LTD

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

depreciation allowance, the cost of capital assets imported before the date of devaluation should be written off to the extent of the full amount of the additional rupee liability incurred on account of devaluation and not what is actually paid from year to year. The proposed legal provision in the matter is intended to be framed on this basis

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 6 vs. M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE BANGALORE PVT LTD

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 92-CA of the Act by making an adjustment in respect of software development services. The Assessing Officer thereafter passed an order of assessment incorporating the transfer pricing adjustment. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in which selection of Infosys Ltd. as comparable was challenged. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals