THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S V S LAD and SONS

In the result, the second

Bench: N.S.SANJAY GOWDA,ALOK ARADHE

64,45,617/- after claiming deduction under Section 80G and 80IB at Rs.1,37,50,000/- and Rs.36,18,515/- respectively, including the additional income declared during the course of search and post search proceedings. The Assessing Authority by an : 4 : order dated 30.12.2009 in respect of the assessment year 2008-09 completed the assessment by disallowing the depreciation

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 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

64 in the text & context of Section 37 primarily denotes the idea of spending or paying out or paying away. It is something that has gone irretrievably. Expenditure is not necessarily confined to the money which has been actually paid out, but it covers a liability which has accrued due or incurred, although it may have to be discharged

P ARVIND MAIYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA

depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed.] - 9 - [d] Where a person is found to have any asset [including financial interest in any entity] located outside India. Explanation 3 – For the purpose of assessment or reassessment under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which

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 SRI VARUN SOUHARDA CREDIT CO OP 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

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 TRIMM EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the order dated 08

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 143(2) of the Act. The assessee filed a reply to the aforesaid notice on 4 07.10.2010. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 30.08.2011 determined total income of the assessee at Rs.1,27,64,292/- after setting off unabsorbed depreciation

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 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

M/S WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

64. Whether the assessee is entitled to the aforesaid benefit when India has no agreement with the States where tax is levied on the income of the assessee. 65. Section 91 of the Act specifically deals with the said question. The aforesaid Section reads as under: “91. Countries with which no agreement exists: - (1) If any person who is resident

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

64. Whether the assessee is entitled to the aforesaid benefit when India has no agreement with the States where tax is levied on the income of the assessee. 65. Section 91 of the Act specifically deals with the said question. The aforesaid Section reads as under: “91. Countries with which no agreement exists: - (1) If any person who is resident

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

64 wherein dealing with the case of a partner who introduced a Capital of `12,20,000/- in the Partnership Firm and explained that Capital contribution to have been received by her as ‘Gifts’ and the donors of such ‘Gifts’ were also produced before the Assessing Authority and even though the Assessing Officer held that the ‘Gifts’ were not genuine

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF EDUCATION

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

Section 11(5) r.w.s.s. 13(d)(i) and 13(2)(h) of the Act and 3 therefore not exempted u/s.11 of the Act and should be treated as AOP and permitting carry forward of depreciation loss as held by the Assessing Officer? 2. Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in holding that a sum of Rs.1,95,64

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. M/S. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.I.ARUN

64,004/-, which works out to 80% of the turn over and which is more than even a private builder or developer could earn. It was further pointed out that the Assessing Officer held that the site/lands which were purchased at lower rates are developed and sold to private industries 6 at higher rate through auctions generating huge profits. Hence