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 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 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

M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

254 ELT 6 (SC) Asst. Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department vs. Shukla & Brother 11 CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF REVENUE: 7. Per contra, Sri K.V.Aravind, learned Panel counsel appearing for respondents would submit that petitioner without exhausting the alternate remedy of appeal namely, approaching the jurisdictional Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court and the same being

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

In the result, the order passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

1) to the assessee. The assessing officer by an order dated 26.03.1999 passed an order of assessment and inter alia quantified the total taxable income at Rs.8,38,38,080/-. 100% Depreciation claimed by the assessee on pollution control equipment worth Rs.4,93,00,000/- was 6 disallowed and 80% interest on the amount advanced to Madhya Pradesh State Electricity

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

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

254/- [including 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

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 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

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

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

HEWLETT PACKARD FINANCIAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

depreciation not being claimed by the appellant on the leased equipments. Per contra, the appellant has submitted that it is an integrated transaction and not two independent transactions to fasten the tax liability and as the integrated transaction is in 13 the course of import falls under the purview of Section 5(2) of the CST Act and has given

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

The appeal is dismissed as having become

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE VINEET SARAN AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B MANOHAR ITA No. 797 OF 2009 (IT) BETWEEN : M/s.Karnataka Instrade Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director Sri. M.R.Seetharam (formerly known as M/s.Karnataka Minerals & Manufacturing Co Ltd.,) No.1, GEF Administrative

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

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL

Appeal is dismissed; and

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,UMESH M ADIGA

1(i) of Section 115JB of the Act is unambiguous and includes the brought forward or unabsorbed depreciation whichever is less as per the books of accounts to be set off. 9. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the records. 2 (2009) 27 SOT 0152 - 5 - ITA No. 329 of 2017 10. Reg - question No.1: Assessee