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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

41 and in this section, unless the context otherwise requires- (1) xxxx (2) “paid” means actually paid or incurred according to the method of accounting upon the basis of which the profits or gains are computed under the head “profits and gains of business or profession” (3) xxxxx (4) xxxxx (5) xxxxx (6) xxxxx Certain deductions to be only

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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

41 and in this section, unless the context otherwise requires- (1) xxxx (2) “paid” means actually paid or incurred according to the method of accounting upon the basis of which the profits or gains are computed under the head “profits and gains of business or profession” (3) xxxxx (4) xxxxx (5) xxxxx (6) xxxxx Certain deductions to be only

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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

41 and in this section, unless the context otherwise requires- (1) xxxx (2) “paid” means actually paid or incurred according to the method of accounting upon the basis of which the profits or gains are computed under the head “profits and gains of business or profession” (3) xxxxx (4) xxxxx (5) xxxxx (6) xxxxx Certain deductions to be only

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

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 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. ABB LTD

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

depreciable assets can also be considered for taxation as a receipt of casual and non- recurring nature under Section 56 of the Act, if the assessee is not in a position to establish that the income accruing to it on account of the impugned transfer is not exempt from tax or is not liable to be taxed under - 9 - Section

M/S J K INDUSTRIES LTD vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, all questions are answered against the

Bench: D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

depreciation of earlier years, in which event, it only amounts that the assessee is being given a benefit much more than the ceiling contemplated under section 80A of the Act. If that is so, it is an indirect way of defeating the purpose and object of section 80A[2] of the 27 Act and therefore also we cannot accept

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

In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

depreciation. (5) Where, in a scheme of amalgamation, xxx asset.” Definitions of certain terms relevant to income from profits and gains of business or profession. 43. In sections 28 to 41

M/S KARNATAKA INSTRADE CORP LTD, vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

The appeal is dismissed as having become

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

depreciation against business income assessed under Section 41(1) on the facts and circumstances of the case? 4. Since the appeal

M/S T T K PRESTIGE LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice S.Sujatha

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year)." On going through the changes, quoted above, made to Section 147 of the Act, we find that, prior to Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, re-opening

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

41. In this connection, it is contended on behalf of the Revenue that if the income is chargeable to tax in India, then - 55 - only the assessee can have the benefit of tax credit in respect of the tax paid in foreign jurisdiction. In respect of exemption under Section 10A, the income derived is not included in the total income

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

41. In this connection, it is contended on behalf of the Revenue that if the income is chargeable to tax in India, then - 55 - only the assessee can have the benefit of tax credit in respect of the tax paid in foreign jurisdiction. In respect of exemption under Section 10A, the income derived is not included in the total income

M/S. MARMON FOOD AND BEVERAGE TECHNOLOGIES INDIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

depreciation for each of the relevant assessment years. (7) The provisions of sub-section (8) and sub-section (10) of section 80IA shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the undertaking referred to in this section as they apply for the purposes of the undertaking referred to in section 80-IA. (7A) Where any undertaking

M/S. MARMON FOOD AND BEVERAGE TECHNOLOGIES INDIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

depreciation for each of the relevant assessment years. (7) The provisions of sub-section (8) and sub-section (10) of section 80IA shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the undertaking referred to in this section as they apply for the purposes of the undertaking referred to in section 80-IA. (7A) Where any undertaking

M/S. MARMON FOOD AND BEVERAGE TECHNOLOGIES INDIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

depreciation for each of the relevant assessment years. (7) The provisions of sub-section (8) and sub-section (10) of section 80IA shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the undertaking referred to in this section as they apply for the purposes of the undertaking referred to in section 80-IA. (7A) Where any undertaking

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S.GE INDIA TECHNOLOGY

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

depreciation for each of the relevant assessment years. (7) The provisions of sub-section (8) and sub-section (10) of section 80IA shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the undertaking referred to in this section as they apply for the purposes of the undertaking referred to in section 80-IA. (7A) Where any undertaking

M/S. MARMON FOOD AND BEVERAGE TECHNOLOGIES INDIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

depreciation for each of the relevant assessment years. (7) The provisions of sub-section (8) and sub-section (10) of section 80IA shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the undertaking referred to in this section as they apply for the purposes of the undertaking referred to in section 80-IA. (7A) Where any undertaking

M/S. MARMON FOOD AND BEVERAGE TECHNOLOGIES INDIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

depreciation for each of the relevant assessment years. (7) The provisions of sub-section (8) and sub-section (10) of section 80IA shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the undertaking referred to in this section as they apply for the purposes of the undertaking referred to in section 80-IA. (7A) Where any undertaking