COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, vs. SHREE RENUKA SUGARS LTD.,

The Appeals are allowed

Bench: K.BHAKTHAVATSALA,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

depreciation even after introduction of Explanation 10 to Section 43(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with effect from

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

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

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

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

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

In the result, all the appeals are

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

depreciation is allowable under Section 11 of the Act, and there is no double claim of capital expenditure as held by the Assessing Officer and the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in escorts Ltd., 199 ITR 43

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

depreciation is allowable under Section 11 of the Act, and there is no double claim of capital expenditure as held by the Assessing Officer and the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in escorts Ltd., 199 ITR 43

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

depreciation is allowable under Section 11 of the Act, and there is no double claim of capital expenditure as held by the Assessing Officer and the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in escorts Ltd., 199 ITR 43

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

depreciation is allowable under Section 11 of the Act, and there is no double claim of capital expenditure as held by the Assessing Officer and the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in escorts Ltd., 199 ITR 43

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

depreciation is allowable under Section 11 of the Act, and there is no double claim of capital expenditure as held by the Assessing Officer and the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in escorts Ltd., 199 ITR 43

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI ADICHUNCHUNGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

depreciation is allowable under Section 11 of the Act, and there is no double claim of capital expenditure as held by the Assessing Officer and the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in escorts Ltd., 199 ITR 43

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

depreciation is allowable under Section 11 of the Act, and there is no double claim of capital expenditure as held by the Assessing Officer and the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in escorts Ltd., 199 ITR 43

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

depreciation is allowable under Section 11 of the Act, and there is no double claim of capital expenditure as held by the Assessing Officer and the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in escorts Ltd., 199 ITR 43

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 under Section 32 of the Act. The definition of actual cost under Section 43(1) of the Act cannot

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

The appeal is dismissed accordingly

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

section 43(5) of the Act.” 8. This Court has admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law : “1. Whether the Tribunal on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the disallowance of depreciation

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

The appeal is dismissed accordingly

Bench: R DEVDAS

section 43(5) of the Act.” 8. This Court has admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law : “1. Whether the Tribunal on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the disallowance of depreciation

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

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

depreciation of buildings, machinery, plant or furniture, being tangible assets or know- how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, being intangible assets allowable to the predecessor and the successor in the case of succession referred to in clause (xiii), clause (xiiib) and clause (xiv) of section 47 or section

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. KRUPANIDHI EDUCATION

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

43 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held when deduction under section 35(2)(iv) is allowed in respect of capital expenditure on scientific research, no depreciation