PR. COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD.,

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

depreciation under Section 32 of the Act. It is also submitted that aforesaid payment was made towards purchase of software was in the nature of royalty in terms of Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and since, no TDS was deduction under Section 195 of the Act on the aforesaid payment, therefore, disallowance under Section 40

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 claimed under 3 section 32 of the Act on an capitalized expenditure on imported software which was purchased by paying Rs.4.05 Crores without deducting TDS as required under section 195 of the Act without appreciating that section 40

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S WIPRO LIMITED

In the result, the appeal is disposed of in terms

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 40 does not apply to a claim for depreciation and claim under Section 32 is a claim for deduction

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.,

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

depreciation under section 32 on repairs and maintenance for AY 2008-09, AY 2009-10 and AY 2010-11?" - 11 - 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant – assessee submitted that the Tribunal erred in setting aside and restoring the issue of disallowance of collection charges under Section 40

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

depreciation under section 32 on repairs and maintenance for AY 2008-09, AY 2009-10 and AY 2010-11?" - 11 - 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant – assessee submitted that the Tribunal erred in setting aside and restoring the issue of disallowance of collection charges under Section 40

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

depreciation under section 32 on repairs and maintenance for AY 2008-09, AY 2009-10 and AY 2010-11?" - 11 - 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant – assessee submitted that the Tribunal erred in setting aside and restoring the issue of disallowance of collection charges under Section 40

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

depreciation under section 32 on repairs and maintenance for AY 2008-09, AY 2009-10 and AY 2010-11?" - 11 - 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant – assessee submitted that the Tribunal erred in setting aside and restoring the issue of disallowance of collection charges under Section 40

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

depreciation under section 32 on repairs and maintenance for AY 2008-09, AY 2009-10 and AY 2010-11?" - 11 - 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant – assessee submitted that the Tribunal erred in setting aside and restoring the issue of disallowance of collection charges under Section 40

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.,

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

depreciation under section 32 on repairs and maintenance for AY 2008-09, AY 2009-10 and AY 2010-11?" - 11 - 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant – assessee submitted that the Tribunal erred in setting aside and restoring the issue of disallowance of collection charges under Section 40

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PVT. LTD.,

Accordingly dispose of the appeal as allowed

Bench: ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,S RACHAIAH

Depreciation on Goodwill on Slump Sale of Rs 11,26,05,318/-. 2. It has been observed that the amount of Rs.36,34,10,000/- towards commission on Sales debited by the assessee to P & L account without TDS, was not disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) in the assessment order. Failure to do so has resulted in short computation

MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

Depreciation 15,35,39,722 Disallowance under section 14A of the IT Act 3,84,26,370 Assessment Year - 2009-10 Particulars AY 2009-10 Disallowance of freight charges under section 40

MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

Depreciation 15,35,39,722 Disallowance under section 14A of the IT Act 3,84,26,370 Assessment Year - 2009-10 Particulars AY 2009-10 Disallowance of freight charges under section 40

M/S PADMINI PRODUCTS (P) LTD., vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the aforesaid

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

depreciation only with reference to the written down value of transferred assets in the hands of predecessor firm and not with reference to actual cost incurred by it? (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right in law in upholding the action of the Learned Respondent in invoking 5th proviso

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

depreciation is allowable over the same in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in ’s case.?” The AO and the Appellate Authority did not allow the expenditure of Rs.21,485/- spent on purchase of paintings as contemplated by Section 37(1) of the Act. The Tribunal, however, held that paintings/works of art improve atheistic and working environment

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5 vs. M/S NOVELL SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PVT.LTD.

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

depreciation claimed on Software Expenses under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by following its earlier order in case

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CISCO SYSTEMS

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

Section 32 (1) of the Act. Therefore, the assessee fulfills even the requirements for a claim of a higher rate of depreciation, and hence is entitled to the same. 31. In this regard, we endorse the following observations of the Tribunal, which clinch the issue in favour of the assessee. “15. The CBDT vide Circular No. 652, dated

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7, vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

depreciation of the intellectual property rights under Section 40 (a)(i) of the Act. Therefore, the Revenue filed a Miscellaneous

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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

depreciation only after 01.04.1998, which was by the amendment in Section 32 of the Act. 25. In the present case, there is no dispute about the fact that know-how was acquired on 01.03.1998, which was prior to 01.04.1998. It is also not disputed that payment for acquiring such know-how was made only in instalments after 01.04.1998. The question