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 CHARISHMA HOTELS PVT LTD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice S.Sujatha

depreciation under Explanation 5 to Section 32(1) of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, appeal was preferred before the CIT(A) on 29.01.2018. It appears, on 07.02.2018, application for interim stay of recovery for assessment year 2015-16 got disposed of with a conditional order to pay 20% of the demand made by the Assessing Officer. The same

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5 vs. M/S NOVELL SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PVT.LTD.

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

depreciation as compared to the companies selected by the Transfer Pricing Officer, there is a definite impact on the net margins of the assessee as compared to comparable companies. Therefore, there is a need of making an adjustment to eliminate differences into accounting policies of the assessee and the comparable companies in terms of the Rules. It is also argued

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

Section 250 read with 254 of the IT Act, the CIT(Appeals) partly allowed the appeal. The assessee challenged the same in ITA No.1143/Bang/2010 for the A.Y.2004-05, before the ITAT and the same has been allowed in part by the impugned order. 4. Revenue has framed following questions in this appeal: 1 ' IT Act ' for short 2 Commissioner of Income

LANGDON & SEAH CONSULTING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: VINEET KOTHARI

Section 250 read with 254 of the IT Act, the CIT(Appeals) partly allowed the appeal. The assessee challenged the same in ITA No.1143/Bang/2010 for the A.Y.2004-05, before the ITAT and the same has been allowed in part by the impugned order. 4. Revenue has framed following questions in this appeal: 1 ' IT Act ' for short 2 Commissioner of Income

M/S NANDI STEELS LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

250(SC) dealt with the issue whether capital gains can be taxed in the hands of the successor company and the issue involved in aforesaid case was not in respect to whether the character of capital gains income was in fact business income. It is also pointed out that the subject matter in question in EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS supra was Section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, vs. M/S CORPORATION BANK

In the result, the third substantial question of law is also answered

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

250/- was declared. The revised return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act o 15.06.2012 and a refund of 4 Rs.133,39,33,970/- was granted. Subsequently, the assessee filed a second revised return on 11.01.2013 in which income of Rs.1367,59,11,162/- was admitted. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 19.02.2013 made an addition on account

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. ONMOBILE GLOBAL LTD

In the result, the matter is remitted to the Tribunal to

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

depreciation at 15% as applicable to plant and machinery. However, the Tribunal failed to appreciate that under explanation (a) to Section 36(1)(xi) of the Act, it is evident that the media resource board cannot be considered as equivalent to computer. It is also pointed out that the media resource board is a device to support a combination

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS vs. ISKCON CHARITIES

In the result, we do not find any merit in these appeals

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

250/- being a provision for bad and doubtful debts. The assessment was re-opened under Section 147 of the Act by issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 31.01.2007, which was served on the assessee on 02.02.2007. The assessee by a communication dated 28.02.2007, requested return of income filed on 31.03.2006 as response to notice under Section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GULBARGA vs. M/S MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

250/-. The assessee during the course of survey declared Rs.17,03,731/- as income representing cessation of liabilities towards creditors. In the 10 course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to file confirmation letter in respect of the creditor M/s. Sri.Gururaghavendra Cotton Ginning Factory, Bellary against whom Rs.1,00,000/- credit balance was outstanding. The assessee was requested