THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CISCO SYSTEMS

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

depreciation or not and in those circumstances, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has rightly exercised suo motu power to revise the assessment proceedings, keeping in view Section 263 of the Act of 1961. He has further argued that the facts of the case reveal that the assessing officer has not applied his mind on the issue in the right

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

In the result, the order dated 24

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

depreciation as claimed under the block 'Computers including Computer Software' despite the fact that the assessee had submitted invoices evidencing acquisition to the extent of 66% of the assets acquired during the year. It is also urged that books of accounts of the assessee are awaited by external auditors and the same are subject to tax audit under Section

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

M/S INDUS TOWERS LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

In the result, we pass the following order:

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR

depreciation, it ‘crms (a i’s that t’it 9rc,cg3dure (icOptLd his hit ir.t o,nc un rlcpriruneru ftt i xtzirurj .zn)qr “LUU’V 1.4 .Ji,_. j%; c ‘ iion l.eu GIL u_’ ic’,S;, citLd 11W’ Lfl%i t Oil the. utaN” ii-Le ii i tqitally

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

66], the Hon’ble Apex Court has held thus: “8. The questions which arise for considerations are: (a) whether a co-operative society registered under the Multi State Act can be granted a license by the RBI to commence and carry on banking business, (b) whether a co-operative society registered under the Multi State Act can be recognized

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

66], the Hon’ble Apex Court has held thus: “8. The questions which arise for considerations are: (a) whether a co-operative society registered under the Multi State Act can be granted a license by the RBI to commence and carry on banking business, (b) whether a co-operative society registered under the Multi State Act can be recognized

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

66], the Hon’ble Apex Court has held thus: “8. The questions which arise for considerations are: (a) whether a co-operative society registered under the Multi State Act can be granted a license by the RBI to commence and carry on banking business, (b) whether a co-operative society registered under the Multi State Act can be recognized

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

66], the Hon’ble Apex Court has held thus: “8. The questions which arise for considerations are: (a) whether a co-operative society registered under the Multi State Act can be granted a license by the RBI to commence and carry on banking business, (b) whether a co-operative society registered under the Multi State Act can be recognized

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

66], the Hon’ble Apex Court has held thus: “8. The questions which arise for considerations are: (a) whether a co-operative society registered under the Multi State Act can be granted a license by the RBI to commence and carry on banking business, (b) whether a co-operative society registered under the Multi State Act can be recognized

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 5 vs. M/S NCR CORPORATION (INDIA) PVT LTD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

66,32,670/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1) and was selected for scrutiny and notice 4 under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued. The assessee had taken premises on lease for a period of three years. The assessee claimed expenditure of Rs.89,23,817/- on account of leasehold improvements as revenue expenditure in the computation

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S M M RUBBER COMPANY LTD

Appeal is dismissed;

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND /OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE HON’BLE COURT AS DEEMED Digitally signed by YASHODHA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - ITA No. 66 of 2021 FIT; SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 04TH JUNE

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S NCR CORPORATION PVT LTD

In the result we do not find any merit in the appeal

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

66,32,670/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1) and was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued. The assessee had taken premises on lease for a period of three years. The assessee claimed expenditure of Rs.89,23,817/- on account of leasehold improvements as revenue expenditure in the computation

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 CANARA BANK BSCA SECTION vs. THE ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(2)

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

66,73,929/- [c] Interest on long term finance to infrastructure companies u/s. 10[23G] Rs. 95,82,88,460/- TOTAL Rs.304,49,89,835/- 3. The assessee contended that “since they have not incurred any expenditure for earning aforesaid income, the question of expenditure relating to these income being added back to the taxable income would not arise

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. CANARA BANK

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 263 of the Act inter alia on the ground that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is perverse and is prejudicial to the interest of revenue inasmuch as out of provision of 4 Rs.407,35,36,368/- made for depreciation on investment by the assessee, the Assessing Officer has added only Rs.2,32,66

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. MOOGAMBIGAI

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

depreciation of Rs.10,73,00,124/-, income from pharmacy amounting to Rs.50,66,973/- and considered accumulation of 15% on net income instead of gross receipts which resulted into addition of Rs.1,70,68,779/- and also other disallowances. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax 4 (Appeals) maintained