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): Provided that where an assessment under sub- section (3

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

depreciation. (5) Where, in a scheme of amalgamation, xxx asset.” Definitions of certain terms relevant to income from profits and gains of business or profession. 43. In sections 28 to 41 and in this section, unless the context otherwise requires— (1) "actual cost" means xxx section 47. (2) "paid" means actually xxx profession. (3

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

Section 32(1) of the Act, which was actually existing in the earlier concern viz., the partnership firm. Therefore, the original assets, which were added in the company at the time of succession cannot be considered for the purposes of depreciation. Accordingly, the claim for depreciation on intangible assets was disallowed. 3

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

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

3) read with Section 144(C) of the Act of 1961 on 12.10.2012, wherein the assessing officer has disallowed the excess depreciation

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

3) r/w Section 153A of the Act by following the judgment of this Hon’ble High Court in the case of M/s Lancy Constructions? In ITA Nos.354/2018 and 355/2018: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating material is necessary condition for proceedings under

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

3) r/w Section 153A of the Act by following the judgment of this Hon’ble High Court in the case of M/s Lancy Constructions? In ITA Nos.354/2018 and 355/2018: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating material is necessary condition for proceedings under

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

3) r/w Section 153A of the Act by following the judgment of this Hon’ble High Court in the case of M/s Lancy Constructions? In ITA Nos.354/2018 and 355/2018: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating material is necessary condition for proceedings under

THE PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

3) r/w Section 153A of the Act by following the judgment of this Hon’ble High Court in the case of M/s Lancy Constructions? In ITA Nos.354/2018 and 355/2018: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating material is necessary condition for proceedings under

THE PR. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

3) r/w Section 153A of the Act by following the judgment of this Hon’ble High Court in the case of M/s Lancy Constructions? In ITA Nos.354/2018 and 355/2018: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating material is necessary condition for proceedings under

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

3) r/w Section 153A of the Act by following the judgment of this Hon’ble High Court in the case of M/s Lancy Constructions? In ITA Nos.354/2018 and 355/2018: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating material is necessary condition for proceedings under

THE PR. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

3) r/w Section 153A of the Act by following the judgment of this Hon’ble High Court in the case of M/s Lancy Constructions? In ITA Nos.354/2018 and 355/2018: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating material is necessary condition for proceedings under

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

3) r/w Section 153A of the Act by following the judgment of this Hon’ble High Court in the case of M/s Lancy Constructions? In ITA Nos.354/2018 and 355/2018: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating material is necessary condition for proceedings under

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

3) r/w Section 153A of the Act by following the judgment of this Hon’ble High Court in the case of M/s Lancy Constructions? In ITA Nos.354/2018 and 355/2018: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating material is necessary condition for proceedings under

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.,

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

3) r/w Section 153A of the Act by following the judgment of this Hon’ble High Court in the case of M/s Lancy Constructions? In ITA Nos.354/2018 and 355/2018: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating material is necessary condition for proceedings under

AZIM PREMJI TRUSTEE COMPANY PVT LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

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): Provided that where an assessment under sub- section (3

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

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