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 and in this section, unless the context otherwise requires— (1) "actual cost" means xxx section 47. (2) "paid" means actually xxx profession. (3) "plant" includes xxx fittings

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

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

c) of sub-section† (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

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

The Appeals are allowed

Bench: K.BHAKTHAVATSALA,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

C, the Revenue, unsuccessfully preferred Appeals before the ITAT at Panaji in Nos.130 and 131/Panaji/2009. The Tribunal dismissed both the Appeals on 2.12.2010, confirming the order of the CIT (Appeals). This is impugned in this Appeal. 4. Revenue has raised the following common substantial questions of law in the above-said Appeals: 5 “(i) Whether the Tribunal was right

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

In the result, all the appeals are

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

c) of the Act. The question herein revolves around Section 11 of the Act. For the purpose of narrating the facts, we are considering ITA No.62/2010. The assessments for the assessment year 2005-06 were concluded under Section 144 of the Act denying exemption under Section 10(23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI ADICHUNCHUNGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

c) of the Act. The question herein revolves around Section 11 of the Act. For the purpose of narrating the facts, we are considering ITA 8 No.62/2010. The assessments for the assessment year 2005-06 were concluded under Section 144 of the Act denying exemption under Section 10(23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

c) of the Act. The question herein revolves around Section 11 of the Act. For the purpose of narrating the facts, we are considering ITA 8 No.62/2010. The assessments for the assessment year 2005-06 were concluded under Section 144 of the Act denying exemption under Section 10(23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

c) of the Act. The question herein revolves around Section 11 of the Act. For the purpose of narrating the facts, we are considering ITA 8 No.62/2010. The assessments for the assessment year 2005-06 were concluded under Section 144 of the Act denying exemption under Section 10(23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

c) of the Act. The question herein revolves around Section 11 of the Act. For the purpose of narrating the facts, we are considering ITA 8 No.62/2010. The assessments for the assessment year 2005-06 were concluded under Section 144 of the Act denying exemption under Section 10(23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

c) of the Act. The question herein revolves around Section 11 of the Act. For the purpose of narrating the facts, we are considering ITA 8 No.62/2010. The assessments for the assessment year 2005-06 were concluded under Section 144 of the Act denying exemption under Section 10(23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

c) of the Act. The question herein revolves around Section 11 of the Act. For the purpose of narrating the facts, we are considering ITA 8 No.62/2010. The assessments for the assessment year 2005-06 were concluded under Section 144 of the Act denying exemption under Section 10(23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

c) of the Act. The question herein revolves around Section 11 of the Act. For the purpose of narrating the facts, we are considering ITA 8 No.62/2010. The assessments for the assessment year 2005-06 were concluded under Section 144 of the Act denying exemption under Section 10(23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account

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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

c) APIL Nil Nil 45% 45% 45% 12. The relevant Section 79 of the Act reads as under: S.79: “Carry forward and set off of losses in the case of certain companies” Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, where a change in shareholding has taken place in a previous year in the case of a company, not being a company

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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

c) APIL Nil Nil 45% 45% 45% 12. The relevant Section 79 of the Act reads as under: S.79: “Carry forward and set off of losses in the case of certain companies” Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, where a change in shareholding has taken place in a previous year in the case of a company, not being a company

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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

c) APIL Nil Nil 45% 45% 45% 12. The relevant Section 79 of the Act reads as under: S.79: “Carry forward and set off of losses in the case of certain companies” Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, where a change in shareholding has taken place in a previous year in the case of a company, not being a company

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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

c) APIL Nil Nil 45% 45% 45% 12. The relevant Section 79 of the Act reads as under: S.79: “Carry forward and set off of losses in the case of certain companies” Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, where a change in shareholding has taken place in a previous year in the case of a company, not being a company

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

AZIM PREMJI TRUSTEE COMPANY PVT LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year). Explanation.—For the purposes of assessment or reassessment or recomputation under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment

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

The appeal is dismissed accordingly

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

c) disallowance of foreign exchange loss claimed by the assessee as a deduction on account of fluctuation in foreign exchange in respect forward contracts.” 6. The disallowances proposed by the assessing officer were confirmed by the Disputes Resolution Panel vide directions dated 30.12.2013 and finally the assessing officer has passed a final order incorporating the directions of the Dispute Resolution