COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. MANIPAL HOTEL & RESTAURANT

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

SECTION 260- A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED: 31/10/2014 PASSED IN ITA NO.1142/BANG/2013, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR- 2010-11 WITH A PRAYER TO 1. DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND/ OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE HON'BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT. 2. TO SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE

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

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

depreciation also merits a similar treatment. 31. As the income of 10-A unit has to be excluded at source itself before arriving at the gross total income, the loss of non 10-A unit cannot be set off against the income of 10-A unit under Section

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

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GMR SPORTS PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals are disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, depreciation at the rate of 25% on the amount of Rs.37,75,29,600/- which comes to Rs.9,43,82,400/- was allowed and the claim for depreciation was disallowed in respect of balance amount of Rs.28,31

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR SPORTS PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals are disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, depreciation at the rate of 25% on the amount of Rs.37,75,29,600/- which comes to Rs.9,43,82,400/- was allowed and the claim for depreciation was disallowed in respect of balance amount of Rs.28,31

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR SPORTS PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals are disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, depreciation at the rate of 25% on the amount of Rs.37,75,29,600/- which comes to Rs.9,43,82,400/- was allowed and the claim for depreciation was disallowed in respect of balance amount of Rs.28,31

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

31. The first deduction contemplated is 90% of any sum referred to clauses [iiia], [iiib], [iiic], [iiid] and [iiie] of 23 section 28 of the Act. That means even for the purpose of section 80HHC[3] of the Act, when one applies the provisions of explanation [baa] to section 80HHC of the Act and in a situation where the assessee

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

31. It is here that the concept of positive profit has significance as the positive profit is only after providing for such allowance and the losses as is enabled under section 72 of the Act. Insofar as provisions of section 80HHC of the Act is concerned, it is no doubt true that it is a beneficial provision which provides

M/S N.M.D.C vs. THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING

Bench: R-1.

depreciation, which is not permissible under the Act. In any case, once we opine that the assessment order had merged with the order of CIT (A) passed on 28.6.2004, the limitation 16 for the purpose of Sub-section (7) of Section 154 is to be counted from this date.” 10. This Court has carefully gone through the aforesaid judgment

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

M/S CHARISHMA HOTELS PVT LTD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

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

31,816/-. Assessments for the assessment year 2012-13 were concluded rejecting the claim of the petitioner for the deduction under Section 35AD of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’ for short), for the assessment year

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S BPL SANYO FINANCE LTD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is

Bench: The Tribunal Was Arising From The Order Dated 4Th June 2004 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Bangalore (For Short “The

depreciation claiming to have had leased the rolls to Bellary Steel. 5 5. The respondent M/s.BPL Sanyo Finance Limited (for short “the assessee”) was in the leasing business. They had filed return of income for the assessment years 1997-98, i.e. for the financial year 1-4-1996 to 31-3-1997, on 28th November 1997 under Section

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S IND SING DEVELOPERS P LTD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

31) of the Act has obviated the requirement for having, production of income, profits or gains, as an essential object for forming an AOP. However the CBDT Circular explaining the above insertion states that such insertion was only to take care of the claim of certain bodies that they did not fall within the definition of a ‘person

M/S SWABHIMANI SOUHARDA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE LTD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (ITO) WARD-5(2)(3

In the result, Writ appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

depreciation in the following year and deeming it to be part of that allowance ; the effect of deeming it to be part of that allowance is that it falls in the following year within Clause (vi) and has to be deducted as allowance.”” 14. In the case of State of Maharashtra V/s. Laljit Rajshi Shah and Others

M/S UDAYA SOUHARDA CREDIT CO OP SOCIETY LTD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, Writ appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

depreciation in the following year and deeming it to be part of that allowance ; the effect of deeming it to be part of that allowance is that it falls in the following year within Clause (vi) and has to be deducted as allowance.”” 14. In the case of State of Maharashtra V/s. Laljit Rajshi Shah and Others