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

M/S WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

36(1)(viii) 17 of the Act is attracted. Therefore, we do not see any merit in these appeals. Accordingly, the first substantial question of law is answered in favour of assessee and against the Revenue. 10. Section 115JA of the Act reads as under: “Deemed income relating to certain companies. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions

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

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

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

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

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 AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD.,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

viii. 13/04/2004 Rs. 1,60,000 ix. 13/07/2004 Rs. 1,00,000 x. 27/07/2004 Rs. 2,00,000 xi. 06/09/2004 Rs. 3,00,000 xii. 10/12/2004 Rs. 5,00,000 xiii. 09/03/2005 Rs. 10,000 xiv. 31/01/2006 Rs. 3,72,00,000 Total Rs. 5,00,00,000 6 4. For the assessment year 2003-04, the facts of which

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD.,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

viii. 13/04/2004 Rs. 1,60,000 ix. 13/07/2004 Rs. 1,00,000 x. 27/07/2004 Rs. 2,00,000 xi. 06/09/2004 Rs. 3,00,000 xii. 10/12/2004 Rs. 5,00,000 xiii. 09/03/2005 Rs. 10,000 xiv. 31/01/2006 Rs. 3,72,00,000 Total Rs. 5,00,00,000 6 4. For the assessment year 2003-04, the facts of which

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

viii. 13/04/2004 Rs. 1,60,000 ix. 13/07/2004 Rs. 1,00,000 x. 27/07/2004 Rs. 2,00,000 xi. 06/09/2004 Rs. 3,00,000 xii. 10/12/2004 Rs. 5,00,000 xiii. 09/03/2005 Rs. 10,000 xiv. 31/01/2006 Rs. 3,72,00,000 Total Rs. 5,00,00,000 6 4. For the assessment year 2003-04, the facts of which

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD.,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

viii. 13/04/2004 Rs. 1,60,000 ix. 13/07/2004 Rs. 1,00,000 x. 27/07/2004 Rs. 2,00,000 xi. 06/09/2004 Rs. 3,00,000 xii. 10/12/2004 Rs. 5,00,000 xiii. 09/03/2005 Rs. 10,000 xiv. 31/01/2006 Rs. 3,72,00,000 Total Rs. 5,00,00,000 6 4. For the assessment year 2003-04, the facts of which

M/S MANYATA PROMOTERS PVT LTD vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, the writ petition is rejected

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice L Narayana Swamy Writ Petition No.56279 Of 2015 (Lb-Bbmp) Between: M/S.Manyata Promoters Pvt. Ltd., A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956 & Having Its Office At First Floor, Classic Court No.9/1, Richmond Road, Bangalore 560 025 Represented By Its Authorized Signatory, Mr.B S Mohan.

depreciation at such rate, as may be prescribed, depending on the age of a building. Explanation.- For the purpose of this section, “Unit Area Value” means an average rate of expected returns from the property per sq.ft., per month determined by the Commissioner, Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike on the basis of the average market rate determined through mass appraisal method

M/S INDUS TOWERS LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

In the result, we pass the following order:

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR

depreciation, it ‘crms (a i’s that t’it 9rc,cg3dure (icOptLd his hit ir.t o,nc un rlcpriruneru ftt i xtzirurj .zn)qr “LUU’V 1.4 .Ji,_. j%; c ‘ iion l.eu GIL u_’ ic’,S;, citLd 11W’ Lfl%i t Oil the. utaN” ii-Le ii i tqitally 1 3 i 0 1