M/S WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 145A of the Income- tax Act which was inserted with effect from assessment year 1999-2000. The said provision states that the valuation of stock should include the amount of any tax duty, cess or fee - 94 - actually paid or incurred to bring the goods to its present location and condition. The Department has followed a consistent stand

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 145A of the Income- tax Act which was inserted with effect from assessment year 1999-2000. The said provision states that the valuation of stock should include the amount of any tax duty, cess or fee - 94 - actually paid or incurred to bring the goods to its present location and condition. The Department has followed a consistent stand

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI RUPESH

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

1 to Section 32 of the Act. Therefore, the position of law as it remains after the introduction of sub- section 1A of Section 32 of the Act w.e.f. 1.4.1971 continued to be the same in respect of revenue expenditure incurred by the assessee on premises taken on lease. In other words the concept of allowing depreciation

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI RUPESH ANAND

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

1 to Section 32 of the Act. Therefore, the position of law as it remains after the introduction of sub- section 1A of Section 32 of the Act w.e.f. 1.4.1971 continued to be the same in respect of revenue expenditure incurred by the assessee on premises taken on lease. In other words the concept of allowing depreciation

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI RUPESH

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

1 to Section 32 of the Act. Therefore, the position of law as it remains after the introduction of sub- section 1A of Section 32 of the Act w.e.f. 1.4.1971 continued to be the same in respect of revenue expenditure incurred by the assessee on premises taken on lease. In other words the concept of allowing depreciation

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI RUPESH

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

1 to Section 32 of the Act. Therefore, the position of law as it remains after the introduction of sub- section 1A of Section 32 of the Act w.e.f. 1.4.1971 continued to be the same in respect of revenue expenditure incurred by the assessee on premises taken on lease. In other words the concept of allowing depreciation

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI N LEELA KUMAR

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

1) or sub-section (1B) of section 143.. (2) In computing the undisclosed income of the block period, the provisions of sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B and 69C shall, so far as may be, - 12 - apply and references to "financial year" in those sections shall be construed as references to the relevant previous year falling in the block period

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S NIRANI SUGARS LTD.,

In the result, the impugned orders passed by

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,P.G.M.PATIL

Section 32(1) of the Act 32. (1) In respect of depreciation of – (i) buildings, machinery, plant or furniture, being

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S NIRANI SUGARS LTD.,

In the result, the impugned orders passed by

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,P.G.M.PATIL

Section 32(1) of the Act 32. (1) In respect of depreciation of – (i) buildings, machinery, plant or furniture, being

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

Section 32 is relevant, which reads thus: “Depreciation 32. (1) In respect of depreciation of – (i) buildings, machinery, plant or furniture

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 or deduction for such assessment year (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year). Explanation.—For the purposes of assessment or reassessment or recomputation under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S RITTAL INDIA PVT LTD.,

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

Section 32(1)(iia), read with second proviso to 32(1)(ii) of the Act, for the assessment year 2007-08, the respondent- assessee could have been, and was granted benefit of 50% of 3 the 20% of the amount of depreciation

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES PVT LTD

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

depreciation. The relevant extract of Section 32(1) of the Act, reads as under: 32(1) In respect of depreciation

THE COMMISSIONER OF vs. THE KARNATAKA STATE

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

depreciation can be considered as a legitimate deduction in computing the real income I.T.A.No.106/2016 & I.T.A.No.107/2016 - 11 - of the assessee on general principles or under section 11(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act. The court rejected the argument on behalf of the Revenue that section 32

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 of 1961 reads as under; “32. (1) In respect of depreciation of— (i) buildings, machinery

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

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

32, clause (ii) of sub-section (3) of section 32A, clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 33, sub-section (4) of section 35 or the second proviso to clause (ix) of sub-section (1) of section 36, as the case may be, shall not apply in relation to any such allowance or deduction; (ii) no loss referred

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

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

32, clause (ii) of sub-section (3) of section 32A, clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 33, sub-section (4) of section 35 or the second proviso to clause (ix) of sub-section (1) of section 36, as the case may be, shall not apply in relation to any such allowance or deduction; (ii) no loss referred

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

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

32, clause (ii) of sub-section (3) of section 32A, clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 33, sub-section (4) of section 35 or the second proviso to clause (ix) of sub-section (1) of section 36, as the case may be, shall not apply in relation to any such allowance or deduction; (ii) no loss referred