THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU 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.2,87,05,957/- when

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

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

87 to 1996-97 was carrying on the business of financial activity in equipment leasing. A search under Section 132 of the Act was conducted at the premises of the appellant and its Directors on 29.03.1996. Thereafter, a notice was issued to the appellant under Section 158BC requiring the assessee to file return of income from block period pending

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

depreciation at the rate of 12.5%. The Assessing Officer added a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- since, assessee did not have any income from rural branches during the Assessment Year and the provisions of Section 36(1)(viia) stipulate to allow deduction not exceeding 5% of the income and 10% of the aggregate income from rural branches. The Assessing Officer

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT MEENAKSHI DEVI AVARU

In the result, the impugned order of the tribunal

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

depreciation at the rate of 12.5%. The Assessing Officer added a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- since, assessee did not have any income from rural branches during the Assessment Year and the provisions of Section 36(1)(viia) stipulate to allow deduction not exceeding 5% of the income and 10% of the aggregate income from rural branches. The Assessing Officer

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

AZIM PREMJI TRUSTEE COMPANY PVT LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year). Explanation.—For the purposes of assessment or reassessment or recomputation under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, vs. SHREE RENUKA SUGARS LTD.,

The Appeals are allowed

Bench: K.BHAKTHAVATSALA,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

87,50,000/- from the Government of Karnataka, from the total cost. Notices under Sections 148 and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act were issued to the assessee to re-work the depreciation

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 on computers as well as claims made under Section 80JJAA of the Act as well as Section 10A of the Act. 3. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), by an order dated 27.06.2012, inter alia allowed the claim of the assessee in respect of disallowance

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

87 ITR 539 (SC) Raza Textiles Ltd., vs. Income Tax Officer, Rampur (6) (2003) 128 Taxman 190 Hemalatha Gargya vs. CIT (7) (2013) 40 taxman.com 545 Vodafone India Ltd., vs. Union of India (8) (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC) Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd., vs. Income Tax Officer (9) (2003) 264 ITR 566 (SC) Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Foramer France

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

87,110/-. Therefore, the total addition on account of un-accounted stock would be Rs.4,22,00,452/-. This is the sum which should be brought to tax as the value of un-accounted stock. Likewise, even for the assessment year 2004-05, the Appellate Authority held that, all the factual/legal arguments for assessment year 2004-05 are exactly

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INDIA HERITAGE FOUNDATION

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

87,268,419 494,521,042 Less: Application of Income Expenses (excluding business activity and Depreciation) Expenditure as per Income and Expenditure Account-Donation Less: Capital Expenditure 8,51,352 38,94,805 48,97,84,885 3,07,77,395 45,90,07,490 Deduction under Chapter VIA u/s 80IB(10) 573,968,569 Taxable Income NIL 10. Thus

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

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

87) (although the judgment related to Estate Duty Act) held that the published balance sheet immediately prior to the date of death as relevant of break up method as appropriate. That case is applicable to the facts of the instant case. Admittedly, there is an audited balance sheet as at 30.6.2000 which is prior to November, 2000. Hence, it would

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