PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GMR SPORTS PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals are disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

depreciation should be granted on total franchisee cost in the first year itself on accrual 6 basis, not on the franchisee fees paid during the year in question as even when the terms of the agreement that if payments are not made on stipulated dates annually, then it would lead to termination of the agreement and moreover the ingredients

M/S T T K PRESTIGE LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice S.Sujatha

depreciation applicable) with consequent tax effect of Rs.6340340/- (including interest u/s 234B for 25 months). This issue may kindly be examined.” 20. Learned AO filed a reply dated 8.7.2013 to the said audit objections. The relevant paragraphs of the same are extracted hereunder: - 58 - “On examination of the objection with reference to the information available on record and also during

MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

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

Depreciation 13,09,37,839 Disallowance under section 14A of the IT Act 9,03,79,391 7 8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment orders, the Petitioner filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which were partly allowed in favour of the petitioner vide orders dated 08.03.2013 and 24.09.2014 respectively, for the aforesaid assessment years

MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

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

Depreciation 13,09,37,839 Disallowance under section 14A of the IT Act 9,03,79,391 7 8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment orders, the Petitioner filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which were partly allowed in favour of the petitioner vide orders dated 08.03.2013 and 24.09.2014 respectively, for the aforesaid assessment years

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. MERITOR LVS INDIA PVT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

depreciation before computing deduction under section 10A, which is contrary to the provisions of section 70, 32(2) and 72 of the Income tax Act?” 3. However, at the request of the Appellants-Revenue, the substantial question of law no.2 is also taken for consideration: “2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT

M/S KILARA POWER PVT. LTD., vs. THE INCOME -TAX OFFICER

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

58,828/- was actually debited to profit and loss account for the year ending 31.03.2002 i.e., Assessment Year 2002-03. However, in the computation of income filed with the return of income, the aforesaid amount was added back. It is further submitted that when no reduction was claimed or allowed in Previous Years, the condition of proviso stands fulfilled

COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX vs. OHIO UNIVERSITY CHRIST COLLEGE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

depreciation and deduction thereof from the gross income of the trust. Income derived from the trust property has also got to be computed on commercial principles and if commercial principles are applied, then adjustment of expenses incurred by the trust for charitable and religious purposes in the earlier years against the income earned by the trust in the subsequent year

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S WIPRO LIMITED

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

depreciation of Rs.17.06,58,039/- on software imported even though the assessing authority had rightly disallowed the expenditure under 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

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

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

58,000/-. The property devolved upon the assessee in a family partition in the year 1972. Assessee treated it as a case of sale of long term capital asset, for which a fair market value was adopted at Rs.225/- per sq.ft. and offered the capital gains for taxation after availing the benefit of indexation. After reopening of the case

M/S KARNATAKA INSTRADE CORPORATION LTD vs. THE ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed and remanded

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

58,12,218/- after setting off unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years to an extent of Rs.3,39,62,012/-. The return was accompanied with the computation of total income, balance sheet, profit and loss account and relevant schedule. However, the Assessing Officer disallowed a sum of Rs.2,23,52,396/- towards inventories written off, as the assessee did not carry

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

PR COMMISSIONER vs. M/S NOVELL SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

depreciation adjustment”. 4. However, this Court in a recent judgment in ITA No.536/2015 C/w ITA No.537/2015 delivered on 25.06.2018 (Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s. Softbrands India Pvt. Ltd.,) has held that in these type of cases, unless an ex-facie perversity in the findings of the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is established by the appellant

PR. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX -IV vs. M/S BROADCOM COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

depreciation at 60% & decision of ITAT, Bangalore Bench in the case of M/s. ING Vysys Bank, in ITA No.1143/Bang/2010 has not accepted by the Revenue and the issue has not reached finality?.” 3. The learned Tribunal, after discussing the rival contentions of both the Appellants-Revenue and the Respondent-assessee, has given the following findings against Revenue with regard

PRINICIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S NOVELL SOFTWARE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

depreciation adjustment. He pointed out that Rule10B of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 [‘the Rules’] provides the Date of Judgment 18-07-2018 I.T.A.No.334/2015 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr Vs. M/s. Novell Software Development (India) Pvt. Ltd., 10/14 method in which the comparability analysis is to be conducted under the Transactional Net Margin Method. Under sub-clause