THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S.GE INDIA TECHNOLOGY

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

depreciation for each of the relevant assessment years. (7) The provisions of sub-section (8) and sub-section (10) of section 80IA shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the undertaking referred to in this section as they apply for the purposes of the undertaking referred to in section 80-IA. (7A) Where any undertaking

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S.GE INDIA TECHNOLOGY

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

depreciation for each of the relevant assessment years. (7) The provisions of sub-section (8) and sub-section (10) of section 80IA shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the undertaking referred to in this section as they apply for the purposes of the undertaking referred to in section 80-IA. (7A) Where any undertaking

M/S. MARMON FOOD AND BEVERAGE TECHNOLOGIES INDIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

depreciation for each of the relevant assessment years. (7) The provisions of sub-section (8) and sub-section (10) of section 80IA shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the undertaking referred to in this section as they apply for the purposes of the undertaking referred to in section 80-IA. (7A) Where any undertaking

M/S. MARMON FOOD AND BEVERAGE TECHNOLOGIES INDIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

depreciation for each of the relevant assessment years. (7) The provisions of sub-section (8) and sub-section (10) of section 80IA shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the undertaking referred to in this section as they apply for the purposes of the undertaking referred to in section 80-IA. (7A) Where any undertaking

M/S. MARMON FOOD AND BEVERAGE TECHNOLOGIES INDIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

depreciation for each of the relevant assessment years. (7) The provisions of sub-section (8) and sub-section (10) of section 80IA shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the undertaking referred to in this section as they apply for the purposes of the undertaking referred to in section 80-IA. (7A) Where any undertaking

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

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the order dated 24

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

65, ST. MARKS ROAD BENGALURU - 560001 REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS DGM & CFO LOCAL HEAD OFFICE BANGALORE MR. RAMESH CHANDRA GOKULAPALAN. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. T. SURYANARAYANA, ADV.,) AND: THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAXPAYER UNITS BENGALURU. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.) - - - THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC. 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER

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 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

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MPHASIS LTD

The appeal is dismissed accordingly

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

65,652/-. 3. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and the assessing authority has disallowed the deduction under 3 Section 10B of the Income tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short) in respect of two units claimed by the assessee for income from onsite-subcontract work given to its associated enterprises in its order passed under Section

SMT. PUNEETHA @ PUNEETHA B. A. vs. SRI. D. RAVI

The appeal is dismissed accordingly

Bench: R DEVDAS

65,652/-. 3. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and the assessing authority has disallowed the deduction under 3 Section 10B of the Income tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short) in respect of two units claimed by the assessee for income from onsite-subcontract work given to its associated enterprises in its order passed under Section

HEWLETT PACKARD FINANCIAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

65(1) OF THE KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, 2003 AGAINST THE ORDER, JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.06.2015 PASSED IN STA NOS.1346 TO 1381/13, STA NOS.2529 TO 2564/2013 AND STA NO.2063/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE APPEALS AND UPHELDING THE ORDERS OF THE AA AND FAA. STRP 412/2015 IS FILED UNDER SECTION

M/S J K CEMENT WORKS vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY,VINEET KOTHARI

65 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short ‘KVAT Act’) raising a question of law for consideration by this Court, being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, on 03rd September 2013, dismissing the appeals of the assessee in STA Nos.2055 to 2057 of 2011 (M/s. J.K.Cement Works V/s. State of Karnataka

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PRAVEEN V DODDANAVAR

Bench: SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR,VINEET KOTHARI

65 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short ‘KVAT Act’) raising a question of law for consideration by this Court, being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, on 03rd September 2013, dismissing the appeals of the assessee in STA Nos.2055 to 2057 of 2011 (M/s. J.K.Cement Works V/s. State of Karnataka

THE BAILHONGAL URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.ABDUL NAZEER,P.S.DINESH KUMAR

65 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short ‘KVAT Act’) raising a question of law for consideration by this Court, being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, on 03rd September 2013, dismissing the appeals of the assessee in STA Nos.2055 to 2057 of 2011 (M/s. J.K.Cement Works V/s. State of Karnataka

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

depreciation under section 32 on repairs and maintenance for AY 2008-09, AY 2009-10 and AY 2010-11?" - 11 - 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant – assessee submitted that the Tribunal erred in setting aside and restoring the issue of disallowance of collection charges under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act pertaining to Passenger Service Fee (Security Component