THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S NIRANI SUGARS LTD.,

In the result, the impugned orders passed by

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,P.G.M.PATIL

depreciation has to be filed along with the return of income filed under sub- section (1) of Section 139 of the Act. Admittedly, in the instant case, the assessee has not filed the return of income within the time limit prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Act, therefore, the Tribunal grossly erred in holding that the assessee is entitled

M/S J K INDUSTRIES LTD vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, all questions are answered against the

Bench: D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

depreciation of the earlier years and by setting off these amounts, if any, before arriving at the total income of the assessee. 12. The other point canvassed by Sri Shankar is relating to the amount which qualifies as the export incentives under sub-section (1) of Section 80HHC and for the purpose of computing the same as per the formula

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MANIPAL UNIVERSAL LEARNING PVT LTD

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

Section 32(1)(ii) and consideration paid for business or commercial rights is eligible for depreciation. No amount can be considered as representing the goodwill on which no depreciation is 3 admissible. Therefore, the assessing authority was directed to reduce the quantum of advance from the business and commercial rights valued by the assessee to ascertain the amounts on which

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION

In the result, the appeal fails

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

depreciation of earlier years of Rs.2,16,63,815/-. The assessment was processed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 26.12.2005 determining

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SRI M.D. YASHODHARAN

In the result, the appeal fails

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

depreciation of earlier years of Rs.2,16,63,815/-. The assessment was processed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 26.12.2005 determining

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GULBARGA vs. M/S MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

depreciation penalty is not leviable. The additions in assessment proceedings will not automatically lead to inference of levying penalty. This Court in the case of GUJAMGADI reported in 290 ITR 168, has held that every addition to income by the Income Tax Officer will not 57 automatically attract levy of penalty. Similar view has also been taken by this Court

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

63 ITR 232, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Rules 12 and 27 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1946 are not exhaustive of the powers of the Tribunal and words “pass such orders as the Tribunal thinks fit” Date of Judgment :23-07-2018 I.T.A.No.512/2017 M/s. Fidelity Business Services India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

63 YEARS ...APPELLANT (BY SRI BALRAM R. RAO, ADV.) AND : 1 . THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, - 4 - BANGALORE-560001 2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.,

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

63 YEARS ...APPELLANT (BY SRI BALRAM R. RAO, ADV.) AND : 1 . THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, - 4 - BANGALORE-560001 2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

63 YEARS ...APPELLANT (BY SRI BALRAM R. RAO, ADV.) AND : 1 . THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, - 4 - BANGALORE-560001 2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

63 YEARS ...APPELLANT (BY SRI BALRAM R. RAO, ADV.) AND : 1 . THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, - 4 - BANGALORE-560001 2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

63 YEARS ...APPELLANT (BY SRI BALRAM R. RAO, ADV.) AND : 1 . THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, - 4 - BANGALORE-560001 2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.,

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

63 YEARS ...APPELLANT (BY SRI BALRAM R. RAO, ADV.) AND : 1 . THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, - 4 - BANGALORE-560001 2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME

M/S SWABHIMANI SOUHARDA CREDIT CO OPERATIVE LTD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (ITO) WARD-5(2)(3)

In the result, Writ appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

depreciation in the following year and deeming it to be part of that allowance ; the effect of deeming it to be part of that allowance is that it falls in the following year within Clause (vi) and has to be deducted as allowance.”” 14. In the case of State of Maharashtra V/s. Laljit Rajshi Shah and Others

M/S SWABHIMANI SOUHARDA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE LTD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (ITO) WARD-5(2)(3

In the result, Writ appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

depreciation in the following year and deeming it to be part of that allowance ; the effect of deeming it to be part of that allowance is that it falls in the following year within Clause (vi) and has to be deducted as allowance.”” 14. In the case of State of Maharashtra V/s. Laljit Rajshi Shah and Others

M/S UDAYA SOUHARDA CREDIT CO OP SOCIETY LTD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, Writ appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

depreciation in the following year and deeming it to be part of that allowance ; the effect of deeming it to be part of that allowance is that it falls in the following year within Clause (vi) and has to be deducted as allowance.”” 14. In the case of State of Maharashtra V/s. Laljit Rajshi Shah and Others

M/S UDAYA SOUHARDA CREDIT CO-OP SOCIETY LTD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, Writ appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

depreciation in the following year and deeming it to be part of that allowance ; the effect of deeming it to be part of that allowance is that it falls in the following year within Clause (vi) and has to be deducted as allowance.”” 14. In the case of State of Maharashtra V/s. Laljit Rajshi Shah and Others