THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. ASTRA ZENECA PHARMA

In the result, the order passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

depreciation 8 and notional interest, which would amount to setting aside the entire order of assessment. It was further held that since, there was no order to pass a fresh order of assessment, therefore, the order giving effect to the findings of the tribunal was not barred by limitation under Section 153(2A) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid order

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 NANDI STEELS LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

depreciation is claimed under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 32; and (c) which was or has been used for the purposes of business, is sold, discarded, demolished or destroyed and the moneys payable in respect of such building, machinery, plant or furniture, as the case may be, together with 16 the amount of scrap value

SMT M R PRABHAVATHY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF

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

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,E.S.INDIRESH

depreciation is prospective and effective only from 1-4-2002?" 2. Admittedly, an order was passed by the Tribunal on 06.07.2017 by which the appeal preferred by the revenue was dismissed. Against the aforesaid order, the revenue had filed two miscellaneous petitions on 13.04.2018 in respect of 5 Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11. The aforesaid miscellaneous petitions were

M/S. BIESSE MANUFACTURING CO PVT LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

depreciation and provisions for bad and doubtful debts? V. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in refusing to recall its order to consider the ground on treating Technical services and software testing services as a separate & independent function when the same is closely linked with the manufacturing activity? VI. Whether

M/S BIESEE MANUFACTURING CO PVT LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

depreciation and provisions for bad and doubtful debts? V. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in refusing to recall its order to consider the ground on treating Technical services and software testing services as a separate & independent function when the same is closely linked with the manufacturing activity? VI. Whether

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

254 ITR 608. 22. Submission is that though the Bombay High Court was examining the question arising out of the understanding and interpretation of the provisions of section 80-I of the Act, it has been very clearly pointed out that for computing the benefit under this section and section 80-I[1] provides that it shall

M/S KARNATAKA INSTRADE CORP LTD, vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

The appeal is dismissed as having become

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

Section 254(2) on the facts and circumstances of the case? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the rectification of its own order amounts to review when the Apex Court has taken a view in the case of ACIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange reported in 305 ITR 227 on the facts and circumstances

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

depreciation of Rs.84,39,457/- in all a sum of Rs.8,63,61,817/- towards Helicopters. On 31.03.2013, the assessment order held that there was a report that the assessee was involved in political activity. The Helicopter was used for political purposes as per media report. The claim was considered by the Assessing Officer under Section

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

254[2] but the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Learned counsel has referred to the Karnataka Souharda [Amendment] Act, 2021 wherein Section 2[e] -19- has been substituted defining ‘Co-operative’ means a Souharda Co-operative Society including a Cooperative bank doing the business of banking registered or deemed to be registered under Section

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

254[2] but the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Learned counsel has referred to the Karnataka Souharda [Amendment] Act, 2021 wherein Section 2[e] -19- has been substituted defining ‘Co-operative’ means a Souharda Co-operative Society including a Cooperative bank doing the business of banking registered or deemed to be registered under Section

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

254[2] but the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Learned counsel has referred to the Karnataka Souharda [Amendment] Act, 2021 wherein Section 2[e] -19- has been substituted defining ‘Co-operative’ means a Souharda Co-operative Society including a Cooperative bank doing the business of banking registered or deemed to be registered under Section

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

254[2] but the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Learned counsel has referred to the Karnataka Souharda [Amendment] Act, 2021 wherein Section 2[e] -19- has been substituted defining ‘Co-operative’ means a Souharda Co-operative Society including a Cooperative bank doing the business of banking registered or deemed to be registered under Section

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

254[2] but the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Learned counsel has referred to the Karnataka Souharda [Amendment] Act, 2021 wherein Section 2[e] -19- has been substituted defining ‘Co-operative’ means a Souharda Co-operative Society including a Cooperative bank doing the business of banking registered or deemed to be registered under Section

ADC INDIA COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Bench: The Hon'Ble Dr.Justice Vineet Kothari

Section 254 of the Act, 1961. He also urged that the due tax as earlier assessed has been paid on the lease rentals earned by the petitioner-assessee and the same has been paid. Date of Order 15-11-2016 W.P.No.18581/2016 ADC India Communications Limited Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax 7/11 8. Having heard the learned senior

M/S KARNATAKA INSTRADE CORPORATION LTD vs. THE ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed and remanded

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

depreciation of earlier years to an extent of Rs.3,39,62,012/-. The return was accompanied with the computation of total income, balance sheet, profit and loss account and relevant schedule. However, the Assessing Officer disallowed a sum of Rs.2,23,52,396/- towards inventories written off, as the assessee did not carry on any business during the assessment year

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