COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI KARNATAKA FRANSALIAN SOCIETY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

68,002/- resulting out of excess application over income without appreciating that the provisions of sections 70 to 80 of IT Act are not applicable to trusts as they only deal with carry forward and set off of loss and not excess expenditure or deficit under section 11(1)(a) of the Act? 3. The learned counsel for Revenue submits

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

68 of the Act appears to have been done without affording a specific opportunity 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-Tax, & Anr. 22/86 of hearing to the assessee and that appears to be the reason for setting aside of that Order of the Tribunal

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

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

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

68, allowed the appeal and directed the Assessing Officer to re-compute the taxable income by first allowing the benefit under section 80HHC of the Act before adjusting for unabsorbed carried forward 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

SRI S S JYOTHI PRAKASH vs. THE ADDL COMMISSIONER

The appeal is allowed accordingly

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

68 of the Act and with regard to the addition under Section 69 of the Act, the Tribunal found that the property in question was valued by the Departmental valuer, approved valuer of the assessee and also District Registrar/Appellate Authority for the stamp duty purpose and hence the Tribunal decided the value of the property at the value which

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S KIDS KEMP

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

depreciation, is prospective in nature and applies w.e.f. 01.04.2002 only. It is further submitted that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the amendment made to Section 32(2) of the Act is prospective in nature. In this connection, our attention has been invited to memorandum explaining the provisions of Finance Act, 2001. Learned counsel for the revenue, while inviting

SMT M. R. PRABHAVATHY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,E.S.INDIRESH

depreciation, is prospective in nature and applies w.e.f. 01.04.2002 only. It is further submitted that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the amendment made to Section 32(2) of the Act is prospective in nature. In this connection, our attention has been invited to memorandum explaining the provisions of Finance Act, 2001. Learned counsel for the revenue, while inviting

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

68. What follows is, if the provisions contained in Section 90 is more beneficial to the assessee as compared to the - 85 - terms in the agreement by India with the Government of any country outside India then, notwithstanding such agreement, the provisions of the Act to the extent they are beneficial to that assesseee apply. The benefit claimed

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

68. What follows is, if the provisions contained in Section 90 is more beneficial to the assessee as compared to the - 85 - terms in the agreement by India with the Government of any country outside India then, notwithstanding such agreement, the provisions of the Act to the extent they are beneficial to that assesseee apply. The benefit claimed

COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX vs. OHIO UNIVERSITY CHRIST COLLEGE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

68 ITD 95 (Mum), the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal at para 33 thereof held as under:- “33. A bare reading of the sub-s. 11(1)(a) does not leave us in doubt that the requirement under s. 11 is for application of income for purposes in India and it does not restrict the application of income within

M/S. KARNATAKA FINANCIAL SERVICES vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

depreciation, the value of assets has to be adopted at Rs.2,00,00,000/- instead of Rs.1,00,00,000/-. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed. 4. Learned Senior counsel for the assessee with regard to first substantial question of law pertaining to non adjudication of the question of limitation submitted that search was conducted under

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 vs. M/S LTI MINDTREE LTD

Bench: JAYANT BANERJI,S.G.PANDIT

68,310/- under Section 115JB of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 01.09.2015. The assessment was concluded under Section 143(3) by making certain additions/disallowances to the total income. On conclusion of the assessment, the claim of depreciation

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

In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

68,301/- claimed by the assessee as 100% deduction under Section 35(1)(i) also came to be disallowed. Said order of assessment dated 31.01.2013 is impugned in the present writ petition. 3. I have heard the arguments of Sriyuths N Venkataraman, learned Senior counsel appearing on 5 behalf of Sri K.R.Vasudevan, for petitioner, Sri K.V.Aravind, learned Senior panel counsel

M/S. KARNATAKA INSTRADE CORPORATION LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

68,126/- towards income from other sources, out of which, Rs.66,482/- is the rental income. Though the Tribunal held the said income as “income from business”, however, refused to grant set-off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation from the heads of Profit and Gain from business, which contrary to law. In view of deeming fiction under Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. ONMOBILE GLOBAL LTD

In the result, the matter is remitted to the Tribunal to

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

depreciation at 15% as applicable to plant and machinery. However, the Tribunal failed to appreciate that under explanation (a) to Section 36(1)(xi) of the Act, it is evident that the media resource board cannot be considered as equivalent to computer. It is also pointed out that the media resource board is a device to support a combination

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.WINTAC LTD.,

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

68,30,330/-. But determined the tax payable under Section 115JB at Rs.38,26,607/-. 4. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) was issued on 25-10-2002. The authorized representative of the assessee appeared on behalf of the assessee. On examination of income tax returns and other details furnished by the assessee- Company

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