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

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

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

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

In the result, the aforesaid

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

5) to Section 32(1) of the Act, which was actually existing in the earlier concern viz., the partnership firm. Therefore, the original assets, which were added in the company at the time of succession cannot be considered for the purposes of depreciation. Accordingly, the claim for depreciation on intangible assets was disallowed. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed

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

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

The Appeals are allowed

Bench: K.BHAKTHAVATSALA,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

5 “(i) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the capital subsidy received from the Government for commissioning Co- Generation Power Plant should not be reduced from cost of assets for calculating depreciation even after introduction of Explanation 10 to Section 43

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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

5. Similarly, for the earlier four assessment years 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02 and 2002-03, the case of the assessee was reopened under Section 147/148 of the Act and the benefit granted in such years under Section 35AB of the Act was disallowed. However, because of limitation, the assessment for the assessment year 1998-99, in which also

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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

5. Similarly, for the earlier four assessment years 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02 and 2002-03, the case of the assessee was reopened under Section 147/148 of the Act and the benefit granted in such years under Section 35AB of the Act was disallowed. However, because of limitation, the assessment for the assessment year 1998-99, in which also

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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

5. Similarly, for the earlier four assessment years 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02 and 2002-03, the case of the assessee was reopened under Section 147/148 of the Act and the benefit granted in such years under Section 35AB of the Act was disallowed. However, because of limitation, the assessment for the assessment year 1998-99, in which also

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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

5. Similarly, for the earlier four assessment years 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02 and 2002-03, the case of the assessee was reopened under Section 147/148 of the Act and the benefit granted in such years under Section 35AB of the Act was disallowed. However, because of limitation, the assessment for the assessment year 1998-99, in which also

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

5. Aggrieved by the same, revenue preferred appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal of the revenue. 6. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the revenue is in appeal. 9 7. Similarly, in ITA Nos.233-234/2013, ITA No.1/2013, ITA No.433/2013, ITA No.414/2010, on the assessment orders denying exemption under Section 11 read

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

5. Aggrieved by the same, revenue preferred appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal of the revenue. 6. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the revenue is in appeal. 9 7. Similarly, in ITA Nos.233-234/2013, ITA No.1/2013, ITA No.433/2013, ITA No.414/2010, on the assessment orders denying exemption under Section 11 read

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI ADICHUNCHUNGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

5. Aggrieved by the same, revenue preferred appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal of the revenue. 6. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the revenue is in appeal. 9 7. Similarly, in ITA Nos.233-234/2013, ITA No.1/2013, ITA No.433/2013, ITA No.414/2010, on the assessment orders denying exemption under Section 11 read

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

5. Aggrieved by the same, revenue preferred appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal of the revenue. 6. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the revenue is in appeal. 9 7. Similarly, in ITA Nos.233-234/2013, ITA No.1/2013, ITA No.433/2013, ITA No.414/2010, on the assessment orders denying exemption under Section 11 read

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

5. Aggrieved by the same, revenue preferred appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal of the revenue. 6. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the revenue is in appeal. 9 7. Similarly, in ITA Nos.233-234/2013, ITA No.1/2013, ITA No.433/2013, ITA No.414/2010, on the assessment orders denying exemption under Section 11 read

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

5. Aggrieved by the same, revenue preferred appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal of the revenue. 6. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the revenue is in appeal. 9 7. Similarly, in ITA Nos.233-234/2013, ITA No.1/2013, ITA No.433/2013, ITA No.414/2010, on the assessment orders denying exemption under Section 11 read

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

5. Aggrieved by the same, revenue preferred appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal of the revenue. 6. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the revenue is in appeal. 9 7. Similarly, in ITA Nos.233-234/2013, ITA No.1/2013, ITA No.433/2013, ITA No.414/2010, on the assessment orders denying exemption under Section 11 read