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 1.4.1999 ? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was correct in applying the principles of the Bombay High Court decision reported in 236 ITR 780 in the case of Menezes Pharmaco which was rendered much prior to the introduction of Explanation

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

In the result, all the appeals are

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

6. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the revenue is in appeal. 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 with Section 10(23c) of the Act and making an addition of income on account of disallowance of depreciation, the assessee preferred appeals which

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

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 with Section 10(23c) of the Act and making an addition of income on account of disallowance of depreciation, the assessee preferred appeals

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

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 with Section 10(23c) of the Act and making an addition of income on account of disallowance of depreciation, the assessee preferred appeals

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

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 with Section 10(23c) of the Act and making an addition of income on account of disallowance of depreciation, the assessee preferred appeals

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

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 with Section 10(23c) of the Act and making an addition of income on account of disallowance of depreciation, the assessee preferred appeals

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

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 with Section 10(23c) of the Act and making an addition of income on account of disallowance of depreciation, the assessee preferred appeals

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

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 with Section 10(23c) of the Act and making an addition of income on account of disallowance of depreciation, the assessee preferred appeals

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI ADICHUNCHUNGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

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 with Section 10(23c) of the Act and making an addition of income on account of disallowance of depreciation, the assessee preferred appeals

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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

6% in the year in question, yet by virtue of being the holding Company, owning 100% shares of APIL, the voting power of ABL cannot be said to have been reduced to less than 51%, because together, both the companies had the voting power of 51% which was controlled by ABL. 17. The purpose of Section

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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

6% in the year in question, yet by virtue of being the holding Company, owning 100% shares of APIL, the voting power of ABL cannot be said to have been reduced to less than 51%, because together, both the companies had the voting power of 51% which was controlled by ABL. 17. The purpose of Section

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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

6% in the year in question, yet by virtue of being the holding Company, owning 100% shares of APIL, the voting power of ABL cannot be said to have been reduced to less than 51%, because together, both the companies had the voting power of 51% which was controlled by ABL. 17. The purpose of Section

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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

6% in the year in question, yet by virtue of being the holding Company, owning 100% shares of APIL, the voting power of ABL cannot be said to have been reduced to less than 51%, because together, both the companies had the voting power of 51% which was controlled by ABL. 17. The purpose of Section

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

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

6) of section 43. Explanation 3.—For the purposes of this sub- section, the expression "assets" shall mean— (a) tangible assets, being buildings, machinery, plant or furniture; (b) intangible assets, being know-how, patents, copyrights, trade marks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature. Explanation 4.—For the purposes of this sub- section, the expression

WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit Writ Petition No.20040/2019 (T-It) Between:

6); in Freight Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd [TS-143-HC-2021(MAD)-TP], the Hon'ble Madras High Court quashed the final assessment order dated 29.10.2010 for AY 2006-07 as being barred by limitation u/s.153(2A) [presently section 153(3)]; similar view is expressed by a Bench of this Court in Paul Noel Rodrigues [2015] 57 taxmann.com 12 (Karnataka

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

6. In all the three appeals, the following question is common: A-11. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the expenses incurred by the assessee for community development is an allowable business expenditure? 7. The respondent-assessee is a Public Limited Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Registered office of the respondent- assessee

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

The appeal is dismissed accordingly

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

6 7. It is submitted that the Tribunal erred in setting aside the recomputation of section 10B deduction by following the decision of this Hon’ble High Court in the case of CIT v/s Tata Elxsi and even when the recomputation done by the assessing authority is in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 8. It is submitted that

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

The appeal is dismissed accordingly

Bench: R DEVDAS

6 7. It is submitted that the Tribunal erred in setting aside the recomputation of section 10B deduction by following the decision of this Hon’ble High Court in the case of CIT v/s Tata Elxsi and even when the recomputation done by the assessing authority is in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 8. It is submitted that