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

vii) of sub-Section 1 of Section 36 as it stood in 1986-87, it appears that it was necessary for the assessee to establish before the Assessing Officer that any debt or part thereof had become a bad debt in the previous year. In view thereof, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that no such efforts were made

THE COMMISSIONER vs. M/S VIJAYA BANK

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

36(vii-a) 5 of the Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed the depreciation claimed on securities classified as ‘Held to Maturity’ and further held that the assessee had earned aggregate sum of Rs.68,65,73,177/-, which is exempt under various sub-Sections of Section 10 of the Act and disallowed the aforesaid amount in terms of Section

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

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 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

VII.—The provisions of this section shall apply to a proceeding for the execution of a decree and references in this section to any suit, issue or former suit shall be construed as references, respectively, to a proceeding for the execution of the decree, question arising in such proceeding and a former proceeding for the execution of that decree. Explanation

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

depreciation has to be allowed, which has been rightly done so by the Tribunal. Substantial question of law No.1 is accordingly answered in favour of the assessee. 17. As far as the second question of law is concerned, the same relates to payment of interest of Rs.72.00 lakh on borrowed capital, as an allowable business expenditure. The contention

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

depreciation has to be allowed, which has been rightly done so by the Tribunal. Substantial question of law No.1 is accordingly answered in favour of the assessee. 17. As far as the second question of law is concerned, the same relates to payment of interest of Rs.72.00 lakh on borrowed capital, as an allowable business expenditure. The contention

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

depreciation has to be allowed, which has been rightly done so by the Tribunal. Substantial question of law No.1 is accordingly answered in favour of the assessee. 17. As far as the second question of law is concerned, the same relates to payment of interest of Rs.72.00 lakh on borrowed capital, as an allowable business expenditure. The contention

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. SYNDICATE BANK

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

1)(vii) read with Section 36(2)(i) of the Act which contemplated treating the said amount as income of the 4 assessee especially when the same had not been written off as bad debts and the RBI guidelines could not prevail over the statutory provisions of the Act? 2. ITA No.100/2010 has also been filed by the revenue, which

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 CORPORATION BANK

In the result, the third substantial question of law is also answered

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

depreciation on investment portfolio, disallowance of expenses with reference to exempt income under Section 14A(1) of the Income Tax Act read with Rule 8D, disallowance under Section 36(1), disallowance under Section 40a(ia) and disallowance under Section 36(1)(vii

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S ING VYSYA BANK LTD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

depreciation rate is spelt out in the Schedule to the Income-tax Act in our opinion is not conclusive as to the nature of the expenditure and whether it resulted in enduring advantage to a particular assessee. It is nobody's case that the assessee is dealing with computer softwares or is in the business of any related services. Rather