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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

36. The Apex Court had an occasion to go into the validity of the agreements entered into under these provisions and their enforceability in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER VS. AZADI BACHAO ANDOLAN AND ANOTHER reported in 263 ITR 706. Dealing with the purpose of provisions for avoidance of double taxation, the Supreme Court at page

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

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-assessee was for providing financial assistance

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

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

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 relates to the business of the undertaking, shall be carried forward

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

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

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 relates to the business of the undertaking, shall be carried forward

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

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

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 relates to the business of the undertaking, shall be carried forward

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

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

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 relates to the business of the undertaking, shall be carried forward

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

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

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 relates to the business of the undertaking, shall be carried forward

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

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

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 relates to the business of the undertaking, shall be carried forward

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

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

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 relates to the business of the undertaking, shall be carried forward

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

V and elsewhere in this lease or any of the annexures, which include but are not limited to requisite lifts and generators, Primary Power and 100% Power Back-up for Common Areas, cleanliness and upkeep of Tower A maintenance of lawn security services, water etc. for Tower A and such necessary area of IBC Knowledge Park for ingress and egress

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

V and elsewhere in this lease or any of the annexures, which include but are not limited to requisite lifts and generators, Primary Power and 100% Power Back-up for Common Areas, cleanliness and upkeep of Tower A maintenance of lawn security services, water etc. for Tower A and such necessary area of IBC Knowledge Park for ingress and egress

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

V and elsewhere in this lease or any of the annexures, which include but are not limited to requisite lifts and generators, Primary Power and 100% Power Back-up for Common Areas, cleanliness and upkeep of Tower A maintenance of lawn security services, water etc. for Tower A and such necessary area of IBC Knowledge Park for ingress and egress

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

depreciation of Rs.84,39,457/- in all a sum of Rs.8,63,61,817/- towards Helicopters. On 31.03.2013, the assessment order held that there was a report that the assessee was involved in political activity. The Helicopter was used for political purposes as per media report. The claim was considered by the Assessing Officer under Section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WEIZMANN HOMES LTD

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

V ARAVIND, ADV.) AND : M/S WEIZMANN HOMES LTD CENTENARY BUILDING, IV TH FLOOR, NO.28, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE. RESPONDENT ( By Sri ASHOK KULKARNI & Sri ANEESHA MIRJI FOR M/S K R PRASAD ) This ITA is filed u/S.260-A of I.T.Act, 1961 arising out of Order dated 09-11-2006 passed in ITA No.2976/Bang/2004 for the Assessment Year 2001-02. These appeals coming

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

v. ASSESSING OFFICER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS’ reported in [2002] 254 ITR 608. 22. Submission is that though the Bombay High Court was examining the question arising out of the understanding and interpretation of the provisions of section 80-I of the Act, it has been very clearly pointed out that for computing the benefit under this section

WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit Writ Petition No.20040/2019 (T-It) Between:

36 order and accordingly, fresh demand, if any, is raised. There is no bar in the Act for raising the demand and, therefore, there is nothing wrong in this practice being followed by the revenue authorities. [Para 8] However, difficulties would arise only where some of the additions are confirmed and/or deleted and some issues are set aside for fresh

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 on the assets which never existed. 22. Learned counsel for the assessee in the course of arguments took us through the order passed by the Tribunal and submitted that the assessee was not aware about the fraudulent intention of Bellary Steel and that 28 they were cheated by Bellary Steel by involving them in the bogus transaction. The assessee