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

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

72 and sub- section (3) of section 73, the allowance or the part of the allowance to which effect has not been given, as the case may be, shall be added to the amount of the allowance for depreciation

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S WIPRO LIMITED

In the result, the appeal is disposed of in terms

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

depreciation under Section 32 of the Act on such software. It is also pointed out that the intent of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is to ensure prevention of revenue leakage on foreign payments as recovery of tax from non resident payees was difficult. With regard to the claim of set off of STP unit losses

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CHESLIND, TEXTILES LTD

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

72(2), unabsorbed business loss is to be first set off and thereafter unabsorbed depreciation treated as current years depreciation under Section

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

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

depreciation allowances of previous year brought forward in terms of that provision. 19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in VIRMANI INDUSTRIES case (supra) examined Section 32(2) of the Act and held that while availing benefit of Section 32(2), it is not necessary that the business carried on in the following previous year should be the same business

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

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

72 or sub- section (1) or sub-section (3) of section 74, in so far as such loss relates to the business of the undertaking, shall be carried forward or set-off where such loss relates to any of the relevant assessment years ending before the 1st day of April 2001; (iii) no deduction shall be allowed under section 80HH

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

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

72 or sub- section (1) or sub-section (3) of section 74, in so far as such loss relates to the business of the undertaking, shall be carried forward or set-off where such loss relates to any of the relevant assessment years ending before the 1st day of April 2001; (iii) no deduction shall be allowed under section 80HH

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

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

72 or sub- section (1) or sub-section (3) of section 74, in so far as such loss relates to the business of the undertaking, shall be carried forward or set-off where such loss relates to any of the relevant assessment years ending before the 1st day of April 2001; (iii) no deduction shall be allowed under section 80HH

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

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

72 or sub- section (1) or sub-section (3) of section 74, in so far as such loss relates to the business of the undertaking, shall be carried forward or set-off where such loss relates to any of the relevant assessment years ending before the 1st day of April 2001; (iii) no deduction shall be allowed under section 80HH

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

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

72 or sub- section (1) or sub-section (3) of section 74, in so far as such loss relates to the business of the undertaking, shall be carried forward or set-off where such loss relates to any of the relevant assessment years ending before the 1st day of April 2001; (iii) no deduction shall be allowed under section 80HH

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

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

72 or sub- section (1) or sub-section (3) of section 74, in so far as such loss relates to the business of the undertaking, shall be carried forward or set-off where such loss relates to any of the relevant assessment years ending before the 1st day of April 2001; (iii) no deduction shall be allowed under section 80HH

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

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

72 or sub- section (1) or sub-section (3) of section 74, in so far as such loss relates to the business of the undertaking, shall be carried forward or set-off where such loss relates to any of the relevant assessment years ending before the 1st day of April 2001; (iii) no deduction shall be allowed under section 80HH

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

72 of the Act. Insofar as provisions of section 80HHC of the Act is concerned, it is no doubt true that it is a beneficial provision which provides for incentive benefit to an assessee who has export business and of the nature as is mentioned in the section. The only significance insofar as section 80HHC of the Act is concerned

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD.,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

72,00,000 Total Rs. 5,00,00,000 6 4. For the assessment year 2003-04, the facts of which are alone being considered in this appeal, the respondent-assessee filed its return of income on 28.11.2003 wherein NIL income was shown after setting off losses brought forward from earlier years. The said return of income was processed under

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD.,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

72,00,000 Total Rs. 5,00,00,000 6 4. For the assessment year 2003-04, the facts of which are alone being considered in this appeal, the respondent-assessee filed its return of income on 28.11.2003 wherein NIL income was shown after setting off losses brought forward from earlier years. The said return of income was processed under

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD.,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

72,00,000 Total Rs. 5,00,00,000 6 4. For the assessment year 2003-04, the facts of which are alone being considered in this appeal, the respondent-assessee filed its return of income on 28.11.2003 wherein NIL income was shown after setting off losses brought forward from earlier years. The said return of income was processed under

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

72,00,000 Total Rs. 5,00,00,000 6 4. For the assessment year 2003-04, the facts of which are alone being considered in this appeal, the respondent-assessee filed its return of income on 28.11.2003 wherein NIL income was shown after setting off losses brought forward from earlier years. The said return of income was processed under

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. MERITOR LVS INDIA PVT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

depreciation before computing deduction under section 10A, which is contrary to the provisions of section 70, 32(2) and 72

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

72. Section 139(5) of the Act provides that, if any person, having furnished a return under sub-section (1), or in pursuance of a notice issued under sub-section (1) of Section 142, discovers any omission or any wrong statement therein, he may furnish a revised return at any time before the expiry of one year from