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

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

2) of Section 10, if he has paid input tax on consumables which is used in the course of his business, though in the course of job work he is not liable to pay any output tax, still in the taxable turnover of the said business, he is entitled to claim deduction of this input tax, however, subject

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. ING. VYSYA BANK LIMITED

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

depreciation, shall be the same as have been adopted for the purpose of preparing such accounts including profit and loss account and laid before the company at its annual general meeting in accordance with the provisions 14 of Section 210 of the Companies Act, 1956. 8. From close scrutiny of Section 115JB(2) of the Act, it is axiomatic that

M/S. ICDS LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

211 of the Companies Act, 1956, it is evident that the assessee is entitled to make such a bifurcation and there is no illegality in the same. It is further submitted that lease equalization charges have to be taxed to the extent of real income and the method of calculating the income has to be followed by applying guidance note

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 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

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

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

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

2. The factual background in which the aforesaid substantial questions of law arise for our consideration in this appeal need mention. The assessee is a wholly owned subsidiary of Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and is primarily engaged in rendering software development services to its associate enterprises. The assessee in the Assessment Year 2009-10 realised net profit margin