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

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

depreciation in respect of the same has to be allowed under Section 32 read with Section 43[3] of the Act. A reference has been made to the case of M.Ramnath Shenoy [ITA No.258/Bang.1997 dated 10.07.1997] and - 18 - observed that for the relevant assessment year 1995-96, the Tribunal accepted (after a detailed discussion) the contention of the assessee that

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of answering the substantial

Bench: S.SUJATHA,SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

depreciation on assets leased by the Appellant to M/s. Mohan Meakin on the basis that the appellant met only part of cost when the appellant had met - 7 - Rs.19,98,000/- out of Rs.22,25,057/- constituting 89.8% of cost? Common Substantial Questions of Law in ITA Nos.5 and 7/2022: 7. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of answering the substantial

Bench: S.SUJATHA,SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

depreciation on assets leased by the Appellant to M/s. Mohan Meakin on the basis that the appellant met only part of cost when the appellant had met - 7 - Rs.19,98,000/- out of Rs.22,25,057/- constituting 89.8% of cost? Common Substantial Questions of Law in ITA Nos.5 and 7/2022: 7. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S CANARA BANK BSCA SECTION vs. THE ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(2)

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

244A interest], was issued. Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny under section 143[3] of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’]. Notices were issued under sections 143[2] and 143[1] on 26.11.2001 which was received by the assessee on the same day. The assessee had claimed disallowance under section