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

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

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 to in sub-section (1) of section 72 or sub- section (1) or sub-section

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

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

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 to in sub-section (1) of section 72 or sub- section (1) or sub-section

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

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

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 to in sub-section (1) of section 72 or sub- section (1) or sub-section

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

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

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 to in sub-section (1) of section 72 or sub- section (1) or sub-section

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

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

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 to in sub-section (1) of section 72 or sub- section (1) or sub-section

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

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

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 to in sub-section (1) of section 72 or sub- section (1) or sub-section

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

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

In the result, all the appeals are

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

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

M/S FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

35. On merits of the case, the learned counsel for the Assessee Company, Mr. Pardiwala drew our attention to the definition of Section 2(22) of the Act which defines the word ‘Dividend’ and the said definition to the extent relevant for his submissions, though we have indicated above that we are not deciding the question of taxability here

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI ADICHUNCHUNGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HEWLETT PACKARD FINANCIAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

depreciation not being claimed by the appellant on the leased equipments. Per contra, the appellant has submitted that it is an integrated transaction and not two independent transactions to fasten the tax liability and as the integrated transaction is in 13 the course of import falls under the purview of Section 5(2) of the CST Act and has given

M/S NANDI STEELS LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

iv) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in not serving the copy of the Tribunal 4 order dated 11.12.2008 as referred in the Tribunal order dated 19.02.2011 in respect of disposal of grounds with regard to issues on Section 148 of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case?". 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal