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 on software of Rs.72,76,90,525/- by placing reliance on the orders passed in the case of the assessee for earlier periods which has not reached finality and even when the ingredients of section

M/S J K INDUSTRIES LTD vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, all questions are answered against the

Bench: D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

90% of any sum referred to clauses [iiia], [iiib], [iiic], [iiid] and [iiie] of 23 section 28 of the Act. That means even for the purpose of section 80HHC[3] of the Act, when one applies the provisions of explanation [baa] to section 80HHC of the Act and in a situation where the assessee is claiming the benefit

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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

90 lakhs 3. However, admittedly the payment for the entire consideration was not made by the assessee-APSL to ABL strictly as per the schedule but according to the details given herein below: i. 31/05/1998 Rs. 10,00,000 ii. 01/09/1999 Rs. 50,00,000 iii. 16/03/2002 Rs. 5,00,000 iv. 31/03/2002 Rs. 40,00,000 v. 25/04/2002

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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

90 lakhs 3. However, admittedly the payment for the entire consideration was not made by the assessee-APSL to ABL strictly as per the schedule but according to the details given herein below: i. 31/05/1998 Rs. 10,00,000 ii. 01/09/1999 Rs. 50,00,000 iii. 16/03/2002 Rs. 5,00,000 iv. 31/03/2002 Rs. 40,00,000 v. 25/04/2002

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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

90 lakhs 3. However, admittedly the payment for the entire consideration was not made by the assessee-APSL to ABL strictly as per the schedule but according to the details given herein below: i. 31/05/1998 Rs. 10,00,000 ii. 01/09/1999 Rs. 50,00,000 iii. 16/03/2002 Rs. 5,00,000 iv. 31/03/2002 Rs. 40,00,000 v. 25/04/2002

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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

90 lakhs 3. However, admittedly the payment for the entire consideration was not made by the assessee-APSL to ABL strictly as per the schedule but according to the details given herein below: i. 31/05/1998 Rs. 10,00,000 ii. 01/09/1999 Rs. 50,00,000 iii. 16/03/2002 Rs. 5,00,000 iv. 31/03/2002 Rs. 40,00,000 v. 25/04/2002

M/S T T K PRESTIGE LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice S.Sujatha

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): Provided that where an assessment under sub- section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

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

SRI N GOVINDARAJU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

90,672/-, which was for reasons other than the one recorded in the notice. During the relevant period, the assessee had sold a plot of land measuring 12,430 sq. ft. for a consideration of Rs.74,58,000/-. The property devolved upon the assessee in a family partition in the year 1972. Assessee treated it as a case of sale

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

The appeals are disposed off

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

90% for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s.80HHC of the Act as per Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC of the Act?” 3. It is submitted that the first and second substantial questions of law are covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VII, NEW DELHI vs. PUNJAB STAINLESS

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

The appeals are disposed off

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

90% for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s.80HHC of the Act as per Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC of the Act?” 3. It is submitted that the first and second substantial questions of law are covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VII, NEW DELHI vs. PUNJAB STAINLESS

P GANGADHARA PATIL vs. MADHAVARAO M K

The appeals are disposed off

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

90% for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s.80HHC of the Act as per Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC of the Act?” 3. It is submitted that the first and second substantial questions of law are covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VII, NEW DELHI vs. PUNJAB STAINLESS

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.BHUWALKA STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

90,823/- on the premise that this was the profit earned by the industrial undertaking which was hitherto being run by the amalgamating company namely M/s AA Alloys Ltd., which activity has been carried on by the assessee company on and after 1- 4-1994 etc. 4 4. The assessing officer was of the opinion that the claim

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S NOVELL SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT (I) PVT LTD

In the result, this appeal is allowed in part and

Bench: D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR,B.S.INDRAKALA

depreciation and unabsorbed loss before computing deduction u/s. 80HHE of the Act? 3 3. Under the impugned order, the tribunal had dismissed the appeal preferred by the revenue contending that the CIT – appeals had committed an error in directing the assessing officer not to exclude 90% of the gains on foreign exchange fluctuations from the business profits while determining

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. SYNDICATE BANK

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

depreciation on securities (iv) floating rate notes of London branch (v) DICGC loans (vi) suits filed accounts (vii) miscellaneous provision cannot be added back in accordance with Explanation to Section 115JA of the Act in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in H.C.L. Comnet where is diminution in the value of assets as contended by the assessee

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INDIA HERITAGE FOUNDATION

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

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, from perusal of the order passed by the Assessing Officer, it is evident that

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PVT. LTD.,

Accordingly dispose of the appeal as allowed

Bench: ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,S RACHAIAH

Section 263 of the Act as under: “The assessee company is engaged in the manufacturing and sale of transmission line hardware and accessories, surge arrestors etc. The assessee had filed return of income on 30.11.2015 declaring total income of Rs.7,35,02,720/-. The scrutiny assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the - 22 - ITA No.53

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

depreciation penalty is not leviable. The additions in assessment proceedings will not automatically lead to inference of levying penalty. This Court in the case of GUJAMGADI reported in 290 ITR 168, has held that every addition to income by the Income Tax Officer will not 57 automatically attract levy of penalty. Similar view has also been taken by this Court