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 any previous year, and 24

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 any previous year, and 24

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 any previous year, and 24

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 any previous year, and 24

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 any previous year, and 24

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 any previous year, and 24

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI SRI ADICHUNCHUNAGIRI SHIKSHANA TRUST

In the result, all the appeals are

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 32 of the Act but under normal commercial principles as laid down by the Courts. It is further contended that allowing exemption on the application of income on the capital asset acquired during the relevant year and further, allowing depreciation in the subsequent years, at any stretch of imagination, could not be construed as double deduction. 13. Mr.Parthasarthy, learned

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S RITTAL INDIA PVT LTD.,

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

24, KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA, VEERAPURA, DODDABALLAPUR-561 203 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI T.SURYANARAYANA, ADV.,) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF I.T.ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 28.01.2014 PASSED IN ITA NO.278/BANG/2013, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 PRAYING TO I) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW II) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

24,000/- u/s.80I of the Act is allowable despite the new industrial undertaking not meeting the conditions stipulated u/s 80HH and 80I of the Act? A-7. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that an amount of goodwill can be allocated to the various fixed assets held by the assessee for the purpose of claiming depreciation? A-8. Whether

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) vs. M/S B S & G FOUNDATION

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

24,57,551/- claimed by assessee? 3. This Court in case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Pune v. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona’ [2018] 89 taxmann.com 127 [SC] with regard to allowability and Depreciation in the hands of Religious and Charitable Trust held as under: “5. Learned Counsel at the Bar submitted that so far as the issue regarding

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES PVT LTD

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 3. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 13.11.2009 allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee by placing reliance on earlier decision of the tribunal and held the assessee to be entitled to depreciation. The revenue approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

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

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

24 one way or the other and the parties have allowed the position to be sustained by not challenging the order, it would not be at all appropriate to allow the position to be changed in subsequent year. In the instant case, the revenue has accepted the claim of the assessee for depreciation under Section

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 NANDI STEELS LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

24(2) of the Act, which is akin to Section 72 of the Act. It is further submitted that the aforesaid decision was dealt with by the Supreme Court in 'CIT VS. COCANADA RADHASWAMI BANK LTD', 57 ITR 306 (SC). It is also pointed out that Supreme Court dealt with Section 25(3) in CIT VS. CHUGANDAS

M/S J K INDUSTRIES LTD vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, all questions are answered against the

Bench: D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

depreciation of earlier years. 23. On the other hand, Mr. Indra Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent – revenue has submitted that section 80-I[1] of the Act while makes a 17 specific reference to gross total income, it is not so in the case of section 80HHC[1] of the Act. 24

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. That reference made to Section 24 of the Act by the counsel for the Revenue

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. That reference made to Section 24 of the Act by the counsel for the Revenue