THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INDIA HERITAGE FOUNDATION

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 263 of the Act firstly, the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous and secondly, that it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on account of error in the order of assessment. 8. The aforesaid provision was considered by the Supreme Court in MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD.I supra and it was held that the phrase ‘prejudicial

WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit Writ Petition No.20040/2019 (T-It) Between:

263 or section 264 requires verification 24 of any issue by way of submission of any document by the assessee or any other person or where an opportunity of being heard is to be provided to the assessee, the Order Giving Effect to the said order u/s.250 or sec.254 or sec.260 or sec.262 or sec.263 or sec.264 shall be made

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CYBER PARK DEVELOPMENT

In the result, the appeal fails

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 263 of the Act initiated proceedings on the ground that Revenue Audit Objection was raised in case of assessee with regard to depreciation

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI SRI ADICHUNCHUNAGIRI SHIKSHANA TRUST

In the result, all the appeals are

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 263 of the Act are set- aside, restoring the assessment order, thus, allowing the depreciation under Section 11 of the Act as claimed

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 263 of the Act are set-aside, restoring the assessment order, thus, allowing the depreciation under Section 11 of the Act as claimed

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 263 of the Act are set-aside, restoring the assessment order, thus, allowing the depreciation under Section 11 of the Act as claimed

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 263 of the Act are set-aside, restoring the assessment order, thus, allowing the depreciation under Section 11 of the Act as claimed

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 263 of the Act are set-aside, restoring the assessment order, thus, allowing the depreciation under Section 11 of the Act as claimed

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 263 of the Act are set-aside, restoring the assessment order, thus, allowing the depreciation under Section 11 of the Act as claimed

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 263 of the Act are set-aside, restoring the assessment order, thus, allowing the depreciation under Section 11 of the Act as claimed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI ADICHUNCHUNGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 263 of the Act are set-aside, restoring the assessment order, thus, allowing the depreciation under Section 11 of the Act as claimed

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 CYBER PARK DEVELOPMENT

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

Bench: The Assessing Officer It Should Be Deemed That The Details

depreciation at 25% on the right to lease hold land, which was classified as an intangible asset by the assessee. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) initiated proceedings under Section 263

HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the assessee's appeal for

Bench: V KAMESWAR RAO,S RACHAIAH

Section 263 of the IT Act by issuing a show-cause notice dated 26.02.2014. The Respondent No.1 was of the opinion that the appellant’s claim for 100% depreciation

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 263 of the Act was not sustainable on both grounds on which it was passed, namely, [i] to disallow the claim of Depreciation

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 263 of the Act was not sustainable on both grounds on which it was passed, namely, [i] to disallow the claim of Depreciation

M/S T T K PRESTIGE LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year)." On going through the changes, quoted above, made to Section 147 of the Act, we find that, prior to Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, re-opening

THE SRI KANNIKAPARAMESWARI CO OP BANK LIMITED vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter - 16 - in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year)." On going through the changes, quoted above, made to Section 147 of the Act, we find that, prior to Direct Tax Laws (Amendment