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

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; 14 (b) intangible assets, being know-how, patents, copyrights, trade marks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature. Explanation 3- Where, before the date of acquisition

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 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

Section 24 of the Act by the counsel for the Revenue is incorrect. He, therefore, contended that the Tribunal has rightly granted the depreciation on elevators also. - 18 - 15. We have considered the aforesaid submissions in light of the lease agreement dated 11/8/2003, which was submitted during the course of arguments. On perusal of the said agreement, relevant portions

THE COMMISIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

Section 24 of the Act by the counsel for the Revenue is incorrect. He, therefore, contended that the Tribunal has rightly granted the depreciation on elevators also. - 18 - 15. We have considered the aforesaid submissions in light of the lease agreement dated 11/8/2003, which was submitted during the course of arguments. On perusal of the said agreement, relevant portions

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

Section 24 of the Act by the counsel for the Revenue is incorrect. He, therefore, contended that the Tribunal has rightly granted the depreciation on elevators also. - 18 - 15. We have considered the aforesaid submissions in light of the lease agreement dated 11/8/2003, which was submitted during the course of arguments. On perusal of the said agreement, relevant portions

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

In the result, all the appeals are

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

43 was not applicable and the principles enunciated by this Hon’ble Court in Society of Sisters St.Ann’s 146 ITR 18 was applicable?” 10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 11. Learned counsel Sri. K.V. Aravind appearing for the revenue would contend that the depreciation is not allowable as deduction

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. SRI ADICHUNCHUNGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

43 was not applicable and the principles enunciated by this Hon’ble Court in Society of Sisters St.Ann’s 146 ITR 18 was applicable?” 10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 11. Learned counsel Sri. K.V. Aravind appearing for the revenue would contend that the depreciation is not allowable as deduction

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

43 was not applicable and the principles enunciated by this Hon’ble Court in Society of Sisters St.Ann’s 146 ITR 18 was applicable?” 10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 11. Learned counsel Sri. K.V. Aravind appearing for the revenue would contend that the depreciation is not allowable as deduction

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

43 was not applicable and the principles enunciated by this Hon’ble Court in Society of Sisters St.Ann’s 146 ITR 18 was applicable?” 10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 11. Learned counsel Sri. K.V. Aravind appearing for the revenue would contend that the depreciation is not allowable as deduction

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

43 was not applicable and the principles enunciated by this Hon’ble Court in Society of Sisters St.Ann’s 146 ITR 18 was applicable?” 10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 11. Learned counsel Sri. K.V. Aravind appearing for the revenue would contend that the depreciation is not allowable as deduction

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

43 was not applicable and the principles enunciated by this Hon’ble Court in Society of Sisters St.Ann’s 146 ITR 18 was applicable?” 10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 11. Learned counsel Sri. K.V. Aravind appearing for the revenue would contend that the depreciation is not allowable as deduction

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

43 was not applicable and the principles enunciated by this Hon’ble Court in Society of Sisters St.Ann’s 146 ITR 18 was applicable?” 10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 11. Learned counsel Sri. K.V. Aravind appearing for the revenue would contend that the depreciation is not allowable as deduction

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

43 was not applicable and the principles enunciated by this Hon’ble Court in Society of Sisters St.Ann’s 146 ITR 18 was applicable?” 10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 11. Learned counsel Sri. K.V. Aravind appearing for the revenue would contend that the depreciation is not allowable as deduction

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

The Appeals are allowed

Bench: K.BHAKTHAVATSALA,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

B in each case before the C I T (Appeals) in ITA No.309 and 376/BGM/08-09. The CIT, placing reliance on the earlier order passed by the ITAT, by order dated 31.8.2009 (vide Annexure-C), allowed the Appeal and directed the Assessing Officer not to reduce the amount of subsidy from the cost of the assets for the purpose of calculation