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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

depreciation or otherwise in respect of any asset, acquisition of which has been claimed as an application of income under this section in the same or any other previous year.” 22

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

depreciation or otherwise in respect of any asset, acquisition of which has been claimed as an application of income under this section in the same or any other previous year.” 22

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

depreciation or otherwise in respect of any asset, acquisition of which has been claimed as an application of income under this section in the same or any other previous year.” 22

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

depreciation or otherwise in respect of any asset, acquisition of which has been claimed as an application of income under this section in the same or any other previous year.” 22

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

depreciation or otherwise in respect of any asset, acquisition of which has been claimed as an application of income under this section in the same or any other previous year.” 22

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

depreciation or otherwise in respect of any asset, acquisition of which has been claimed as an application of income under this section in the same or any other previous year.” 22

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI ADICHUNCHUNGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

depreciation or otherwise in respect of any asset, acquisition of which has been claimed as an application of income under this section in the same or any other previous year.” 22

M/S PADMINI PRODUCTS (P) LTD., vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the aforesaid

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

22,351/- and Rs.12,08,55,111/- 5 respectively. The assessee filed return of income for Assessment Year 2006-07 and 2008-09 declaring the income as ‘NIL’. The case of the assessee for the Assessment Year 2005-06 was reopened under Section 147 of the Act on the ground that during the course of the proceeding for Assessment Year

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S WIPRO LIMITED

In the result, the appeal is disposed of in terms

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

depreciation claimed on software to the tribunal for 21 decision afresh by taking into account the decision rendered in Wipro Ltd. supra. Accordingly, the second substantial question of law is answered. 11. Thus, from perusal of aforesaid paragraph, it is evident that the issue pertaining to expenditure incurred for purchase of software as royalty has been dealt with

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

22(1) i.e. to a co-operative bank. The term "Co- operative Bank" has been defined in the Banking Regulation Act and only includes a state co-operative bank or a central co- operative bank or a primary co- operative bank. Reference to the term "co-operative bank" in the Multi State Act is of no assistance. When a term

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

22(1) i.e. to a co-operative bank. The term "Co- operative Bank" has been defined in the Banking Regulation Act and only includes a state co-operative bank or a central co- operative bank or a primary co- operative bank. Reference to the term "co-operative bank" in the Multi State Act is of no assistance. When a term

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

22(1) i.e. to a co-operative bank. The term "Co- operative Bank" has been defined in the Banking Regulation Act and only includes a state co-operative bank or a central co- operative bank or a primary co- operative bank. Reference to the term "co-operative bank" in the Multi State Act is of no assistance. When a term

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

22(1) i.e. to a co-operative bank. The term "Co- operative Bank" has been defined in the Banking Regulation Act and only includes a state co-operative bank or a central co- operative bank or a primary co- operative bank. Reference to the term "co-operative bank" in the Multi State Act is of no assistance. When a term

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

22(1) i.e. to a co-operative bank. The term "Co- operative Bank" has been defined in the Banking Regulation Act and only includes a state co-operative bank or a central co- operative bank or a primary co- operative bank. Reference to the term "co-operative bank" in the Multi State Act is of no assistance. When a term

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WIPRO LTD

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

22,484/- as repair expenses, claimed by the assessee for removal of machinery to make way for short mix plant installation, is allowable as a revenue expenditure and that no depreciation can be allowed contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 49 ITR 160. A-2 Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the deduction

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

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

22 cause notice. The assessee has filed all relevant documents including the copies of agreements entered with the customers and the assessee has also referred to the Circulars issued by the CBDT clarifying the legal position to claim depreciation on assets under operating lease as well as finance lease. The assessing officer being satisfied with the explanation and after conducting

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

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

depreciation, unabsorbed business loss and unabsorbed investment allowance of the earlier years cannot be granted before deduction under section 80HHC of the Act; that provisions of section 80AB of Act cannot be applied while determining business profits under section 80HHC of the Act. 22