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

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 55[1] and 55[2] of the Act were amended in order to bring extinguishment of such a right to manufacture etc., within the ambit of the capital gains tax. It has been clarified that the cost of acquisition and cost of improvement to be determined in the same manner as for the goodwill. Goodwill is neither equated

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 NANDI STEELS LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

55 ITR 17 (SC), 'CIT VS. COCANADA RADHASWAMI BANK LTD', 57 ITR 306 (SC) and 'CIT VS. VIKRAM COTTON MILLS LTD.', (1988) 169 ITR 597 and LETTER DATED 17.08.2020. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that undisputedly the assets sold by the assessee is capital asset and consideration has been offered to tax under

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

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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

55% to 6%, and the remaining 94% was divided between TAFE and APIL at 49% and 45% respectively. It is, thus, contended that the Company would hence not be entitled to claim carry forward and set-off of business losses in the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04. Learned counsel has submitted that even though the APIL

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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

55% to 6%, and the remaining 94% was divided between TAFE and APIL at 49% and 45% respectively. It is, thus, contended that the Company would hence not be entitled to claim carry forward and set-off of business losses in the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04. Learned counsel has submitted that even though the APIL

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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

55% to 6%, and the remaining 94% was divided between TAFE and APIL at 49% and 45% respectively. It is, thus, contended that the Company would hence not be entitled to claim carry forward and set-off of business losses in the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04. Learned counsel has submitted that even though the APIL

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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

55% to 6%, and the remaining 94% was divided between TAFE and APIL at 49% and 45% respectively. It is, thus, contended that the Company would hence not be entitled to claim carry forward and set-off of business losses in the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04. Learned counsel has submitted that even though the APIL

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- vs. DR. RANJAN PAI

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

55 of the Act. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in 'KHODAY DISTELLERIES LTD. VS. COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX', 307 ITR 312 (SC), 'THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF REVENUE, SEPARATE REVENUE, MADRAS, REFERRING OFFICER VS. MADURA MILLS COMPANY LTD.', ILR 1937 MAD 559, 'HUNSUR PLYWOOD WORKS LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME

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

depreciation has to be allowed, which has been rightly done so by the Tribunal. Substantial question of law No.1 is accordingly answered in favour of the assessee. 17. As far as the second question of law is concerned, the same relates to payment of interest of Rs.72.00 lakh on borrowed capital, as an allowable business expenditure. The contention

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

depreciation has to be allowed, which has been rightly done so by the Tribunal. Substantial question of law No.1 is accordingly answered in favour of the assessee. 17. As far as the second question of law is concerned, the same relates to payment of interest of Rs.72.00 lakh on borrowed capital, as an allowable business expenditure. The contention

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

depreciation has to be allowed, which has been rightly done so by the Tribunal. Substantial question of law No.1 is accordingly answered in favour of the assessee. 17. As far as the second question of law is concerned, the same relates to payment of interest of Rs.72.00 lakh on borrowed capital, as an allowable business expenditure. The contention

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:

55) ELT 433; the Parliament by the subject amendments has prescribed a time limit for making refund of tax and has also provided for the payment of interest on the delayed refunds. V. Difference between ‘assessment', 'reassessment' or 'recomputation’ and ‘fresh assessment’ (i) The words ‘assessment, ‘reassessment’ or ‘recomputation’ have been used in the following sections

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

55,111/- 5 respectively. The assessee filed return of income for Assessment Year 2006-07 and 2008-09 declaring the income as ‘NIL’. The case of the assessee for the Assessment Year 2005-06 was reopened under Section 147 of the Act on the ground that during the course of the proceeding for Assessment Year 2007-08, it was noticed

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

depreciation on capitalization of expenditure incurred during the assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in restoring the file to assessing authority as for disallowance made by assessing authority in respect of Section 14A read with Rule

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

depreciation on capitalization of expenditure incurred during the assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in restoring the file to assessing authority as for disallowance made by assessing authority in respect of Section 14A read with Rule

THE PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

depreciation on capitalization of expenditure incurred during the assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in restoring the file to assessing authority as for disallowance made by assessing authority in respect of Section 14A read with Rule