COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

9 7. Similarly, in ITA Nos.233-234/2013, ITA No.1/2013, ITA No.433/2013, ITA No.414/2010, on the assessment orders denying exemption under Section 11 read with Section 10(23c) of the Act and making an addition of income on account of disallowance of depreciation

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

9 7. Similarly, in ITA Nos.233-234/2013, ITA No.1/2013, ITA No.433/2013, ITA No.414/2010, on the assessment orders denying exemption under Section 11 read with Section 10(23c) of the Act and making an addition of income on account of disallowance of depreciation

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION (MEDICAL)

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

9 7. Similarly, in ITA Nos.233-234/2013, ITA No.1/2013, ITA No.433/2013, ITA No.414/2010, on the assessment orders denying exemption under Section 11 read with Section 10(23c) of the Act and making an addition of income on account of disallowance of depreciation

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI ADICHUNCHUNGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

9 7. Similarly, in ITA Nos.233-234/2013, ITA No.1/2013, ITA No.433/2013, ITA No.414/2010, on the assessment orders denying exemption under Section 11 read with Section 10(23c) of the Act and making an addition of income on account of disallowance of depreciation

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS vs. AL-AMEEN CHARITABLE FUND TRUST

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

9 7. Similarly, in ITA Nos.233-234/2013, ITA No.1/2013, ITA No.433/2013, ITA No.414/2010, on the assessment orders denying exemption under Section 11 read with Section 10(23c) of the Act and making an addition of income on account of disallowance of depreciation

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

9 7. Similarly, in ITA Nos.233-234/2013, ITA No.1/2013, ITA No.433/2013, ITA No.414/2010, on the assessment orders denying exemption under Section 11 read with Section 10(23c) of the Act and making an addition of income on account of disallowance of depreciation

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KARNATAKA REDDY JANASANGHA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

9 7. Similarly, in ITA Nos.233-234/2013, ITA No.1/2013, ITA No.433/2013, ITA No.414/2010, on the assessment orders denying exemption under Section 11 read with Section 10(23c) of the Act and making an addition of income on account of disallowance of depreciation

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

depreciation under Section 32 of the Act. It is also submitted that aforesaid payment was made towards purchase of software was in the nature of royalty in terms of Explanation 2 to Section 9

PR. COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD.,

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

depreciation under Section 32 of the Act. It is also submitted that aforesaid payment was made towards purchase of software was in the nature of royalty in terms of Explanation 2 to Section 9

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

depreciation under Section 32 of the Act. It is also submitted that aforesaid payment was made towards purchase of software was in the nature of royalty in terms of Explanation 2 to Section 9

M/S PADMINI PRODUCTS (P) LTD., vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the aforesaid

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

depreciation allowance for Previous year at the prescribed dates. It is 19 proposed to restrict the aggregate deduction in a year to the deduction computed at the prescribed rates and apportion the allowance in the ratio of number of days for which the assets were used by them. 9. Thus, it is evident that 5th proviso to Section

THE COMMISSIONER OF vs. THE KARNATAKA STATE

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),S.G.PANDIT

9 - “These are the petitions and appeals filed by the Income-tax Department against the orders passed by various High Courts granting benefit of depreciation on the assets acquired by the respondents-assesses. It is a matter of record that all the assesses are charitable institutions registered under section

HEWLETT-PACKARD INDIA SALES PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the order of the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

9 depreciation under Section 32 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2002-03 and 2003-04. Therefore, the revenue

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

9. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The revenue has contended that the Assessing Officer has rightly disallowed the depreciation claimed on software, which was treated as royalty under Section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S RITTAL INDIA PVT LTD.,

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

9. The language used in Clause (iia) of the said Section clearly provides that “a further sum equal to 20% of the actual cost of such machinery or plant shall be allowed as deduction under Clause (ii)”. The word “shall” used in the said Clause is very significant. The benefit which is to be granted is 20% additional depreciation

WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit Writ Petition No.20040/2019 (T-It) Between:

9] Piecemeal assessment is not possible under section 143(3), however, while giving appeal effect in the present kind of situation, the Assessing Officer was performing two functions, namely, carrying out the directions of the appellate authority in respect of the issues which had become final and secondly, re-examining the issues which had been set aside to him. Each

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI N LEELA KUMAR

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

9 - (b) where returns of income have been filed under section 139 or in response to a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 or section 148 but assessments have not been made till the date of search or requisition, on the basis of the income disclosed in such returns; (c) where the due date for filing

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) of the Act. We may refer to the relevant extract of the order passed by the Assessing Officer, which reads as under: What transpires from the above is that Digital Equipment Corporation USA has been taken over by Compaq Computer Corporation. Digital as an entity does not exist after the said takeover except in India