THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI N LEELA KUMAR

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

depreciation under sub-section (2) of section 32; (b) of a firm, returned income and total income assessed for each of the previous years falling within the block period shall be the income determined before allowing deduction of salary, interest, commission, bonus or remuneration by whatever name called to any partner not being a working partner : Provided that undisclosed income

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES PVT LTD

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act in respect of intangible assets of Rs.9,07,25,000/- when the same is not identical, and is based on adhoc estimate basis and not on actual cost as per Section 3 43(1) of the Act? 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the assessee

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

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

69 taxmann.com 170(SC). 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee has vehemently argued before this Court that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in law and in facts in initiating the proceedings under Section 263 of the Act of 1961 without appreciating the fact that the proceedings 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 FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

69-A of the Act by the Tribunal were set aside. 26. In the said judgment of the Allahabad High Court, it is true that the Tribunal cannot travel beyond the subject matter of the Appeal, but the additions under Section 69A, a different provision while deleting the additions under Section 68 of the Act appears to have been done

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CYBER PARK DEVELOPMENT

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

Bench: The Assessing Officer It Should Be Deemed That The Details

69,575/- was an intangible asset and depreciation could be claimed and the interference u/s. 263 of the Act was neither erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue? 2. Facts leading to filing of the appeal briefly stated are that the assessee is engaged in the business of developing, operating and maintaining infrastructure facilities for software and related

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE VYSYA BANK LTD,

In the result, the impugned order of the tribunal

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act would demonstrate that intangible asset is capital asset eligible for depreciation. It is also pointed out that the tribunal has failed to take into account the fact that in the decision of IBM INDIA LTD. rendered by this court, the expenditure incurred was towards acquisition of an application software which has a limited

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT MEENAKSHI DEVI AVARU

In the result, the impugned order of the tribunal

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act would demonstrate that intangible asset is capital asset eligible for depreciation. It is also pointed out that the tribunal has failed to take into account the fact that in the decision of IBM INDIA LTD. rendered by this court, the expenditure incurred was towards acquisition of an application software which has a limited

SRI C M MAHADEVA S/O SRI MANCHE GOWDA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

69 of the Act. Challenging the said order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), which was partly allowed on merits, but the reopening under Sections 148/147 of the Act was held to be valid. Challenging the same, the revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal, in which the assessee filed cross-objections and challenged

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 vs. M/S SAPA EXTRUSION INDIA PVT LTD

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

Section 143(3) read with 144C of the Act by which the assessee’s loss was determined at `31,49,38,785/- by disallowing the depreciation of `5,01,69

THE COMMISSIONER vs. M/S VIJAYA BANK

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

69,349/- being excess provision claimed under Section 36(vii-a) 5 of the Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed the depreciation

DELL INDIA PVT LTD vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

69,986/- was added to the income of assessee as could be seen from the assessment order dated 25.03.2014 16 Annexure-J and as such the assessing officer had reason to believe that deferred revenue had escaped assessment and thereby he had issued the impugned notice for re-opening the assessment which does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever

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

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 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

depreciation of Rs.84,39,457/- in all a sum of Rs.8,63,61,817/- towards Helicopters. On 31.03.2013, the assessment order held that there was a report that the assessee was involved in political activity. The Helicopter was used for political purposes as per media report. The claim was considered by the Assessing Officer under Section

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

69. Therefore, if prior to the amendment, there was no thorough provision granting the said benefit as the said benefit was conferred on the asessee under DTAs, the assessee was entitled to the said benefit as DTAs over-ride the provisions of Income Tax Act. 70. In that view of the matter, it is not necessary to go into

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

69. Therefore, if prior to the amendment, there was no thorough provision granting the said benefit as the said benefit was conferred on the asessee under DTAs, the assessee was entitled to the said benefit as DTAs over-ride the provisions of Income Tax Act. 70. In that view of the matter, it is not necessary to go into