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

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

28 or Section 56 and not as capital gains. The provisions of Section 56 read with Section 10[3] are quite apposite. Entire sale consideration not allocable to inventories and non-depreciable

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 32 of the Act but under normal commercial principles as laid down by the Courts. It is further contended that allowing exemption on the application of income on the capital asset acquired during the relevant year and further, allowing depreciation in the subsequent years, at any stretch of imagination, could not be construed as double deduction. 13. Mr.Parthasarthy, learned

THE COMMISSIONER OF vs. THE KARNATAKA STATE

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),S.G.PANDIT

28 of the Income-tax Act deals with chargeability of income from profits and gains of business and section 29 provides that income from profits and gains of business shall be computed in accordance with section 30 to section 43C. That, section 32(1) of the Act provides for depreciation

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 32 of the Act but under normal commercial principles as laid down by the Courts. It is further contended that allowing exemption on the application of income on the capital asset acquired during the relevant year and further, allowing depreciation in the subsequent years, at any stretch of imagination, could not be construed as double deduction. 13. Mr.Parthasarthy, learned

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 32 of the Act but under normal commercial principles as laid down by the Courts. It is further contended that allowing exemption on the application of income on the capital asset acquired during the relevant year and further, allowing depreciation in the subsequent years, at any stretch of imagination, could not be construed as double deduction. 13. Mr.Parthasarthy, learned

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 32 of the Act but under normal commercial principles as laid down by the Courts. It is further contended that allowing exemption on the application of income on the capital asset acquired during the relevant year and further, allowing depreciation in the subsequent years, at any stretch of imagination, could not be construed as double deduction. 13. Mr.Parthasarthy, learned

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 32 of the Act but under normal commercial principles as laid down by the Courts. It is further contended that allowing exemption on the application of income on the capital asset acquired during the relevant year and further, allowing depreciation in the subsequent years, at any stretch of imagination, could not be construed as double deduction. 13. Mr.Parthasarthy, learned

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 32 of the Act but under normal commercial principles as laid down by the Courts. It is further contended that allowing exemption on the application of income on the capital asset acquired during the relevant year and further, allowing depreciation in the subsequent years, at any stretch of imagination, could not be construed as double deduction. 13. Mr.Parthasarthy, learned

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 32 of the Act but under normal commercial principles as laid down by the Courts. It is further contended that allowing exemption on the application of income on the capital asset acquired during the relevant year and further, allowing depreciation in the subsequent years, at any stretch of imagination, could not be construed as double deduction. 13. Mr.Parthasarthy, learned

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI ADICHUNCHUNGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 32 of the Act but under normal commercial principles as laid down by the Courts. It is further contended that allowing exemption on the application of income on the capital asset acquired during the relevant year and further, allowing depreciation in the subsequent years, at any stretch of imagination, could not be construed as double deduction. 13. Mr.Parthasarthy, learned

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

28 of the Income Tax Act deals with chargeability of income from profits and gains of business and section 29 provides that income from profits and gains of business shall be computed in accordance with section 30 to section 43C, That, section 32(1) of the Act provides for depreciation

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

28 of the Income Tax Act deals with chargeability of income from profits and gains of business and section 29 provides that income from profits and gains of business shall be computed in accordance with section 30 to section 43C, That, section 32(1) of the Act provides for depreciation

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. M/S INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

28 of the Income Tax Act deals with chargeability of income from profits and gains of business and section 29 provides that income from profits and gains of business shall be computed in accordance with section 30 to section 43C, That, section 32(1) of the Act provides for depreciation

PR.COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SACKHUMVIT TRUST

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

28 of the Income Tax Act deals with chargeability of income from profits and gains of business and section 29 provides that income from profits and gains of business shall be computed in accordance with section 30 to section 43C, That, section 32(1) of the Act provides for depreciation

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF GENERAL EDUCATION

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

28 of the Income Tax Act deals with chargeability of income from profits and gains of business and section 29 provides that income from profits and gains of business shall be computed in accordance with section 30 to section 43C, That, section 32(1) of the Act provides for depreciation

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF GENERAL EDUCATION

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

28 of the Income Tax Act deals with chargeability of income from profits and gains of business and section 29 provides that income from profits and gains of business shall be computed in accordance with section 30 to section 43C, That, section 32(1) of the Act provides for depreciation

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF GENERAL EDUCATION

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

28 of the Income Tax Act deals with chargeability of income from profits and gains of business and section 29 provides that income from profits and gains of business shall be computed in accordance with section 30 to section 43C, That, section 32(1) of the Act provides for depreciation

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. M/S CHALASSANI EDUCATION TRUST

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

28 of the Income Tax Act deals with chargeability of income from profits and gains of business and section 29 provides that income from profits and gains of business shall be computed in accordance with section 30 to section 43C, That, section 32(1) of the Act provides for depreciation