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

In the result, the impugned order of the tribunal

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

73,88,373/-as income exempt under Section 10 without debiting any expenses for the same. The return was selected for scrutiny and notices were issued to the assessee. The Assessing Officer passed an order under Section 143(3) of the Act, and held that since, administrative expenses are to be incurred for earning exempt income, 50% of the exempt

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT MEENAKSHI DEVI AVARU

In the result, the impugned order of the tribunal

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

73,88,373/-as income exempt under Section 10 without debiting any expenses for the same. The return was selected for scrutiny and notices were issued to the assessee. The Assessing Officer passed an order under Section 143(3) of the Act, and held that since, administrative expenses are to be incurred for earning exempt income, 50% of the exempt

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

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

In the result, the order dated 24

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

73% of the invoices in relation to capital assets acquired during the year as furnishing of substantial evidence relating to capital assets and therefore ought to have allowed depreciation under section

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

In the result, appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

73% of the invoices in relation to capital assets acquired during the year as furnishing of substantial evidence relating to capital assets and therefore ought to have allowed depreciation under section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GULBARGA vs. M/S MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

73,408/-. Accordingly, the additions made by the Assessing Authority were deleted by the Appellate Authority. But under valuation of the closing stock has been brought to tax under a different head. In essence, the disallowances made by the Appellate Authority were on different grounds. 11. Acting on the said finding recorded by the Appellate Authority, the Assessing Authority

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KBD SUGARS & DISTILLERIES LTD

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

section 724(A)?." Brief facts of the case are: 2. Revenue’s case is, Respondent assessee, involved in the business of IMFL1 Sugar and generation of wind energy had claimed depreciation of Rs.9,73

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

OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: RAGHVENDRA S.CHAUHAN

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

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

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

depreciation allowance) originally assessed/determined. Rs. 73,604/- 6. Whether the case falls under cl. (a) or (b) of s. 147 147(a) 7. Brief reasons for starting proceedings Under s. 147 (indicate the items which Kindly see overleaf are believed to have escaped assessment Sd/- S. P. Chaliha. I.T.O. 30-4-66 A-Ward, Muzaffarpur. 8.Whether the Commissioner is satisfied

THE COMMISSIONER vs. M/S VIJAYA BANK

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 36(vii-a) 5 of the Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed the depreciation claimed on securities classified as ‘Held to Maturity’ and further held that the assessee had earned aggregate sum of Rs.68,65,73

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

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

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

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

depreciation. (5) Where, in a scheme of amalgamation, xxx asset.” Definitions of certain terms relevant to income from profits and gains of business or profession. 43. In sections 28 to 41 and in this section, unless the context otherwise requires— (1) "actual cost" means xxx section 47. (2) "paid" means actually xxx profession. (3) "plant" includes xxx fittings

HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the assessee's appeal for

Bench: V KAMESWAR RAO,S RACHAIAH

Section 263 of the Act on the basis that the AO had not examined the issue of claim of depreciation on leasehold improvements when the details of the depreciation claimed in respect of the leasehold improvements were appropriately disclosed by the appellant in the tax audit report, financial statements and in assessment submissions