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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 145A of the Income- tax Act which was inserted with effect from assessment year 1999-2000. The said provision states that the valuation of stock should include the amount of any tax duty, cess or fee - 94 - actually paid or incurred to bring the goods to its present location and condition. The Department has followed a consistent stand

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

4. In ITA 68/07, the following four substantial questions of law are raised for our consideration: A-5. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that a sum of Rs.8,156/- spent on modification of building, a sum of Rs.3,60,694/- spent on corporate office repairs and Rs.21,485/-spent on purchase of paintings is a revenue expenditure

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MPHASIS LTD

The appeal is dismissed accordingly

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

4. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions of the Coordinate Bench, we uphold the order of the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) in allowing the depreciation at 60% on computer peripherals and accessories, and, thus, the ground raised by the revenue is rejected. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed." 6. We are in agreement

SMT. PUNEETHA @ PUNEETHA B. A. vs. SRI. D. RAVI

The appeal is dismissed accordingly

Bench: R DEVDAS

4. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions of the Coordinate Bench, we uphold the order of the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) in allowing the depreciation at 60% on computer peripherals and accessories, and, thus, the ground raised by the revenue is rejected. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed." 6. We are in agreement

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 37

M/S CANARA BANK BSCA SECTION vs. THE ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(2)

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

37(1) of the Act? Yet another substantial question of law that arises for consideration in I.T.A. No.1397/2006 is as under: (4) Whether the Tribunal was right in restricting the allowance under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act to the extent of the provision made by the appellant when the Section provides for the allowance not - 17 - exceeding

M/S DIFFUSION ENGINEERS LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

4) CIT vs SAYAJI INDUSTRIES LTD. – [81 DTR 418 (GUJ)] (5) CIT vs MOLEX (INDIA) LTD – [344 ITR 156 (KAR)] 7. The learned counsel appearing for the revenue supported the order passed by the Tribunal and relied on the Judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs Drilcos (India

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

In the result, all the appeals are

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

37 of the Act to point out that any expenditure not being expenditure of the nature described in Sections 30 to 36, not being in the nature of capital 6 expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head ‘Profit

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI ADICHUNCHUNGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

37 of the Act to point out that any expenditure not being expenditure of the nature described in Sections 30 to 36, not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head ‘Profit

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

37 of the Act to point out that any expenditure not being expenditure of the nature described in Sections 30 to 36, not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head ‘Profit

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KARNATAKA REDDY JANASANGHA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

37 of the Act to point out that any expenditure not being expenditure of the nature described in Sections 30 to 36, not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head ‘Profit

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

37 of the Act to point out that any expenditure not being expenditure of the nature described in Sections 30 to 36, not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head ‘Profit

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

37 of the Act to point out that any expenditure not being expenditure of the nature described in Sections 30 to 36, not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head ‘Profit

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

37 of the Act to point out that any expenditure not being expenditure of the nature described in Sections 30 to 36, not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head ‘Profit

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

37 of the Act to point out that any expenditure not being expenditure of the nature described in Sections 30 to 36, not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head ‘Profit

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

37. Further, he drew our attention to Section 115-O and Section 115-Q of the Act, particularly, the Explanation below Section 115-Q of the Act which stands amended by Finance Act 2018, with effect from Date of Judgment :23-07-2018 I.T.A.No.512/2017 M/s. Fidelity Business Services India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, & Anr. 35/86

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX vs. M/S KAWASAKI MICRO ELECTRONICS INC

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

depreciation invoking Section 40(a)(i) of the Act. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the tribunal have deleted the disallowance. It is 4 submitted that consequences of failure to deduct tax at source either on expenditure under Section 32 or Section 37

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD

In the result, the order of the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

37 of the Act and only when the same was not accepted by the Assessing Officer, the assessee made an alternate 10 claim under Section 35(1)(iv) of the Act before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and alternate claim can be considered by appellate Authority. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in 'NATIONAL