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

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

1) issued by Respondent No.1 under Section 148 of the Income –tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2014-15(Annexure-‘B’); (iii) Declaring that Section 56(2) (vii) (c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has no application to the listed 3 shares of Wipro Ltd., that were gifted to Pioneer Independent Trust in the previous year relevant

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

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 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which reads as under: “Explanation-1 …For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that any expenditure incurred by an assessee for any purpose which is an offense or which is prohibited by law shall not be deemed to have been incurred for the purpose of business or profession

M/S NANDI STEELS LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 14, 28, 41(2), 45(1), 56(1), 72 and 74(1) of the Act, which read as under: 14. Heads of income Save as otherwise provided by this Act, all income shall, for the purposes of charge of income- tax and computation of total income, be classified under the following heads of income:- A.- Salaries. B.-] C.- Income

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:

56,39,522/-; the Assessee grieves against denial of 3% addl. interest envisaged u/s 244A(1A) for the 6 period between 28.12.2017 i.e., date of ITAT order and 4.5.2019 i.e., the date on which refund was finally granted; this period being seventeen months, the Assessee quantifies the interest amount at Rs.58.65 crore. 6. SUBMISSIONS CANVASSED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES PVT LTD

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act in respect of intangible assets of Rs.9,07,25,000/- when the same is not identical, and is based on adhoc estimate basis and not on actual cost as per Section 3 43(1) of the Act? 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the assessee

M/S FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

56. The Full Bench of Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax, Gujarat-I Vs. Cellulose Products of India Ltd.[1985] 151 ITR 499 (Guj) (FB) held that the scope of appeal before the Tribunal extends to the subject matter of the appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC), the first Appellate Authority and merely because

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

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

depreciable assets can also be considered for taxation as a receipt of casual and non- recurring nature under Section 56 of the Act, if the assessee is not in a position to establish that the income accruing to it on account of the impugned transfer is not exempt from tax or is not liable to be taxed under - 9 - Section

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 OF 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

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

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. 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