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

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

iv) or clause(iva) or clause (v) of sub-section(1) of section 36, or as required by or under any other law for the time being in force. In the light of this provision, we have examined the facts of the present case. It has come on record that the donation to Khandesh Education Society made by the respondent

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 HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES PVT LTD

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

IV VS. HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGES (P.) LTD., (2011) 198 TAXMAN 104 (DELHI). 6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Section 32 deals with depreciation. The relevant extract of Section 32(1

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI SRI ADICHUNCHUNAGIRI SHIKSHANA TRUST

In the result, all the appeals are

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

32(1)(ii) and Section 35(2)(iv) of the 1965 Act. It was the case of the assessee claiming a specified percentage of the written down value of the asset as depreciation

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI ADICHUNCHUNGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

32(1)(ii) and Section 35(2)(iv) of 19 the 1965 Act. It was the case of the assessee claiming a specified percentage of the written down value of the asset as depreciation

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

32(1)(ii) and Section 35(2)(iv) of 19 the 1965 Act. It was the case of the assessee claiming a specified percentage of the written down value of the asset as depreciation

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

32(1)(ii) and Section 35(2)(iv) of 19 the 1965 Act. It was the case of the assessee claiming a specified percentage of the written down value of the asset as depreciation

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

32(1)(ii) and Section 35(2)(iv) of 19 the 1965 Act. It was the case of the assessee claiming a specified percentage of the written down value of the asset as depreciation

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

32(1)(ii) and Section 35(2)(iv) of 19 the 1965 Act. It was the case of the assessee claiming a specified percentage of the written down value of the asset as depreciation

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

32(1)(ii) and Section 35(2)(iv) of 19 the 1965 Act. It was the case of the assessee claiming a specified percentage of the written down value of the asset as depreciation

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

32(1)(ii) and Section 35(2)(iv) of 19 the 1965 Act. It was the case of the assessee claiming a specified percentage of the written down value of the asset as depreciation

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

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

32. (1) In respect of depreciation of— (i) buildings, machinery, plant or furniture, being tangible assets; (ii) know-how, patents, copyrights, trade marks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, being intangible assets acquired on or after the 1st day of April, 1998, owned, wholly or partly, by the assessee and used for the purposes

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

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

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