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

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

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 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

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD

In the result, the order of the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

35(1)(iv) of the Act before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and alternate claim can be considered by appellate Authority. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in 'NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD. VS. CIT', (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) and 'JUTE CORPORATION INDIA VS. CIT', (1990) 53 TAXMAN 85 (SC). It is also

HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

In the result, the order of the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

35(1)(iv) of the Act before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and alternate claim can be considered by appellate Authority. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in 'NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD. VS. CIT', (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) and 'JUTE CORPORATION INDIA VS. CIT', (1990) 53 TAXMAN 85 (SC). It is also

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

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

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 to in sub-section (1) of section 72 or sub- section (1) or sub-section (3) of section 74, in so far as such loss

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

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

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 to in sub-section (1) of section 72 or sub- section (1) or sub-section (3) of section 74, in so far as such loss

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

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

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 to in sub-section (1) of section 72 or sub- section (1) or sub-section (3) of section 74, in so far as such loss

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

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

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 to in sub-section (1) of section 72 or sub- section (1) or sub-section (3) of section 74, in so far as such loss

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

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

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 to in sub-section (1) of section 72 or sub- section (1) or sub-section (3) of section 74, in so far as such loss

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

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

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 to in sub-section (1) of section 72 or sub- section (1) or sub-section (3) of section 74, in so far as such loss

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

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

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 to in sub-section (1) of section 72 or sub- section (1) or sub-section (3) of section 74, in so far as such loss

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

iv) Notwithstanding anything contained to the contrary, the rent payable shall be [(Actual Plinth Area + (27% of Actual Plinth Area)) multiplied by Rs.22/-] for the first three years and thereafter for the 4th and the 5th year it shall be multiplied Rs.25.30p (instead of Rs.22/-) per Sq. Ft. per month of actual plinth area.” - 21 - Clauses

THE COMMISIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

iv) Notwithstanding anything contained to the contrary, the rent payable shall be [(Actual Plinth Area + (27% of Actual Plinth Area)) multiplied by Rs.22/-] for the first three years and thereafter for the 4th and the 5th year it shall be multiplied Rs.25.30p (instead of Rs.22/-) per Sq. Ft. per month of actual plinth area.” - 21 - Clauses

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

iv) Notwithstanding anything contained to the contrary, the rent payable shall be [(Actual Plinth Area + (27% of Actual Plinth Area)) multiplied by Rs.22/-] for the first three years and thereafter for the 4th and the 5th year it shall be multiplied Rs.25.30p (instead of Rs.22/-) per Sq. Ft. per month of actual plinth area.” - 21 - Clauses

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

In the result, all the appeals are

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

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 DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

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