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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

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 condition of application of income

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

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 condition of application of income

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

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 condition of application of income

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

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 condition of application of income

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

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 condition of application of income

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI ADICHUNCHUNGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

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 condition of application of income

HEWLETT-PACKARD INDIA SALES PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the order of the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

27,04,961/- was claimed on account of depreciation on assets given on lease under Section 32 4 of the Act. The Assessing

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

Section 32 of the Act and hence, is entitled to claim depreciation in respect of additions made to the trucks, which were leased out. 30. With regard to the claim of the assessee for a higher rate of depreciation, the import of the same term “purposes of 27

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

depreciation under Section 32 of the Act. The return was processed under Section 143(1) on 27-03-1997. 3. A search

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

depreciation of earlier years, in which event, it only amounts that the assessee is being given a benefit much more than the ceiling contemplated under section 80A of the Act. If that is so, it is an indirect way of defeating the purpose and object of section 80A[2] of the 27

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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

depreciation only after 01.04.1998, which was by the amendment in Section 32 of the Act. 25. In the present case, there is no dispute about the fact that know-how was acquired on 01.03.1998, which was prior to 01.04.1998. It is also not disputed that payment for acquiring such know-how was made only in instalments after 01.04.1998. The question

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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

depreciation only after 01.04.1998, which was by the amendment in Section 32 of the Act. 25. In the present case, there is no dispute about the fact that know-how was acquired on 01.03.1998, which was prior to 01.04.1998. It is also not disputed that payment for acquiring such know-how was made only in instalments after 01.04.1998. The question

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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

depreciation only after 01.04.1998, which was by the amendment in Section 32 of the Act. 25. In the present case, there is no dispute about the fact that know-how was acquired on 01.03.1998, which was prior to 01.04.1998. It is also not disputed that payment for acquiring such know-how was made only in instalments after 01.04.1998. The question

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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

depreciation only after 01.04.1998, which was by the amendment in Section 32 of the Act. 25. In the present case, there is no dispute about the fact that know-how was acquired on 01.03.1998, which was prior to 01.04.1998. It is also not disputed that payment for acquiring such know-how was made only in instalments after 01.04.1998. The question

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S.GE INDIA TECHNOLOGY

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

depreciation for each of the relevant assessment years. (7) The provisions of sub-section (8) and sub-section (10) of section 80IA shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the undertaking referred to in this section as they apply for the purposes of the undertaking referred to in section 80-IA. (7A) Where any undertaking

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S.GE INDIA TECHNOLOGY

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

depreciation for each of the relevant assessment years. (7) The provisions of sub-section (8) and sub-section (10) of section 80IA shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the undertaking referred to in this section as they apply for the purposes of the undertaking referred to in section 80-IA. (7A) Where any undertaking

M/S. MARMON FOOD AND BEVERAGE TECHNOLOGIES INDIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

depreciation for each of the relevant assessment years. (7) The provisions of sub-section (8) and sub-section (10) of section 80IA shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the undertaking referred to in this section as they apply for the purposes of the undertaking referred to in section 80-IA. (7A) Where any undertaking