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

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

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

36. He also drew our attention to Section 46-A of the Act which provides for “Levy of capital gains on purchase by the Company of its own shares or other specified securities”. The said provision is also quoted below for ready reference:- “Section 46A: Where a shareholder or a holder of other specified securities receives Date of Judgment

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 J K CEMENT WORKS vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY,VINEET KOTHARI

2) of Section 10, if he has paid input tax on consumables which is used in the course of his business, though in the course of job work he is not liable to pay any output tax, still in the taxable turnover of the said business, he is entitled to claim deduction of this input tax, however, subject

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PRAVEEN V DODDANAVAR

Bench: SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR,VINEET KOTHARI

2) of Section 10, if he has paid input tax on consumables which is used in the course of his business, though in the course of job work he is not liable to pay any output tax, still in the taxable turnover of the said business, he is entitled to claim deduction of this input tax, however, subject

THE BAILHONGAL URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.ABDUL NAZEER,P.S.DINESH KUMAR

2) of Section 10, if he has paid input tax on consumables which is used in the course of his business, though in the course of job work he is not liable to pay any output tax, still in the taxable turnover of the said business, he is entitled to claim deduction of this input tax, however, subject

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

2), the amount of any debt or part thereof, which is established to have become a bad debt in the previous year, which is written-off.” On the basis of the provision contained in Clause (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

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

In the result, all the appeals are

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

2. Since, common question of law is raised in all these appeals, the matters are heard together and disposed of by this common Judgment. 3. The assessees in all these appeals are the charitable institutions registered under Section 12AA and 10(23)(c) of the Act. The question herein revolves around Section 11 of the Act. For the purpose

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS vs. AL-AMEEN CHARITABLE FUND TRUST

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

2. Since, common question of law is raised in all these appeals, the matters are heard together and disposed of by this common Judgment. 3. The assessees in all these appeals are the charitable institutions registered under Section 12AA and 10(23)(c) of the Act. The question herein revolves around Section 11 of the Act. For the purpose

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION (MEDICAL)

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

2. Since, common question of law is raised in all these appeals, the matters are heard together and disposed of by this common Judgment. 3. The assessees in all these appeals are the charitable institutions registered under Section 12AA and 10(23)(c) of the Act. The question herein revolves around Section 11 of the Act. For the purpose

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

2. Since, common question of law is raised in all these appeals, the matters are heard together and disposed of by this common Judgment. 3. The assessees in all these appeals are the charitable institutions registered under Section 12AA and 10(23)(c) of the Act. The question herein revolves around Section 11 of the Act. For the purpose

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

2. Since, common question of law is raised in all these appeals, the matters are heard together and disposed of by this common Judgment. 3. The assessees in all these appeals are the charitable institutions registered under Section 12AA and 10(23)(c) of the Act. The question herein revolves around Section 11 of the Act. For the purpose

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI ADICHUNCHUNGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

2. Since, common question of law is raised in all these appeals, the matters are heard together and disposed of by this common Judgment. 3. The assessees in all these appeals are the charitable institutions registered under Section 12AA and 10(23)(c) of the Act. The question herein revolves around Section 11 of the Act. For the purpose