COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

sections, notional deduction by way of depreciation etc. is claimed and such amount of notional deduction remains to be applied for charitable purpose. Therefore, double benefit is claimed by the trusts and institutions under the existing law. The provisions need to be rationalized to ensure that double benefit is not claimed and such notional 25 amount does not excluded from

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KARNATAKA REDDY JANASANGHA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

sections, notional deduction by way of depreciation etc. is claimed and such amount of notional deduction remains to be applied for charitable purpose. Therefore, double benefit is claimed by the trusts and institutions under the existing law. The provisions need to be rationalized to ensure that double benefit is not claimed and such notional 25 amount does not excluded from

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

sections, notional deduction by way of depreciation etc. is claimed and such amount of notional deduction remains to be applied for charitable purpose. Therefore, double benefit is claimed by the trusts and institutions under the existing law. The provisions need to be rationalized to ensure that double benefit is not claimed and such notional 25 amount does not excluded from

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI ADICHUNCHUNGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

sections, notional deduction by way of depreciation etc. is claimed and such amount of notional deduction remains to be applied for charitable purpose. Therefore, double benefit is claimed by the trusts and institutions under the existing law. The provisions need to be rationalized to ensure that double benefit is not claimed and such notional 25 amount does not excluded from

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS vs. AL-AMEEN CHARITABLE FUND TRUST

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

sections, notional deduction by way of depreciation etc. is claimed and such amount of notional deduction remains to be applied for charitable purpose. Therefore, double benefit is claimed by the trusts and institutions under the existing law. The provisions need to be rationalized to ensure that double benefit is not claimed and such notional 25 amount does not excluded from

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

sections, notional deduction by way of depreciation etc. is claimed and such amount of notional deduction remains to be applied for charitable purpose. Therefore, double benefit is claimed by the trusts and institutions under the existing law. The provisions need to be rationalized to ensure that double benefit is not claimed and such notional 25 amount does not excluded from

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

section 57 provides for depreciation u/s 32(2). It shows that even in computing the income from other sources, the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation u/s 32(2). This crucial aspect also was not examined by the Commissioner of Income-tax in the right perspective. Therefore, we find that the Assessing Officer has rightly allowed the deduction of Rs.2

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT (A) vs. M/S AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

section 57 provides for depreciation u/s 32(2). It shows that even in computing the income from other sources, the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation u/s 32(2). This crucial aspect also was not examined by the Commissioner of Income-tax in the right perspective. Therefore, we find that the Assessing Officer has rightly allowed the deduction of Rs.2

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH THE SECRETARY vs. M/S KARDICOPPAL ESTATE THITHIMATHI

Appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

26(4) of the Act, whereas in the present case the amendment made under Section 15 (1) of the Act, was the subject matter and therefore, he submitted that when the vested rights of the respondents-original petitioners was taken away by the amendment under Section 15 of the Act, it cannot be said that the issues stand covered

M/S PADMINI PRODUCTS (P) LTD., vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the aforesaid

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

depreciation with reference to an enhanced cost), the actual cost to the assessee shall be such an amount as the Assessing Officer may, with the previous approval of the Deputy Commissioner, determine having regard to all the circumstances of the case. 47. Transactions not regarded as transfer Nothing contained in section 45 shall apply to the following transfers:- 15 (xiii

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

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

26(2) of the Income 10 Tax Act, 1922 and not Section 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

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

depreciation? A-8. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the donations made to Khandesh Education Society do not attract the provisions of Section 40A(9) of the Act? 7 5. In ITA 133/07, the following two substantial questions of law arise for our consideration: A-9. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the stock transfers made

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

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

depreciation in respect of leased assets under Section 32 of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.” 17. The Division Bench of this Court has placed reliance upon a judgment delivered in the case of M/s ICDS Ltd (supra), wherein again the same issue was involved. Paragraphs 26

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CHESLIND, TEXTILES LTD

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

Section 10B amounting to Rs.4,75,30,724/- on the business income of Rs.5,36,70,676/- without setting-off unabsorbed depreciation amount of Rs.4,26

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

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

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

depreciation should be adjusted first and benefit of deduction given to the assessee in terms of section 80HHC of the Act. 26

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MAA COMMUNICATION BOZELL LTD

The appeal is allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

Section 148 of the Act, the assessment has been reopened and fresh order has been passed. We do not find any flaw in the procedure followed by the Assessing Officer. The assessee has not 26 made out a case to interfere with the reopening of the assessment. 16. It is brought to the notice of the Court that

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD.,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

depreciation. The corresponding amendment was brought in Section 35AB of the Act, wherein it was provided that the benefit of the said Section, which was with regard to expenditure on know-how, would be only when the assessee has paid (as lump sum consideration) for the know-how, prior to 01.04.1998. 26

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD.,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

depreciation. The corresponding amendment was brought in Section 35AB of the Act, wherein it was provided that the benefit of the said Section, which was with regard to expenditure on know-how, would be only when the assessee has paid (as lump sum consideration) for the know-how, prior to 01.04.1998. 26