THE SRI KANNIKAPARAMESWARI CO OP BANK LIMITED vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

97 taxmann.com 112 - 6 - submitted that reopening of the assessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Act was made not on any new material or information, but on mere change of opinion. By referring to the reasons recorded by the assessing officer, learned counsel submitted that reopening of the proceedings is not justifiable; there was no failure on the part

P VIKRAM MAIYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA

depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed.] - 9 - [d] Where a person is found to have any asset [including financial interest in any entity] located outside India. Explanation 3 – For the purpose of assessment or reassessment under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MAKINO ASIA PVT LTD

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

97,490/-, as was shown in the original return. The revised return was accordingly accepted and the assessment was completed without the benefit of set off of the loss carried forward of the Assessment year 1998-99. The Assessment order dated 30.06.2003 passed by the Assessing officer was, therefore, carried in appeal by the assessee before the Appellate Authority under

DELL INDIA PVT LTD vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

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

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

97,75,711/- after making addition for TP adjustment of Rs.82,25,37,671/- and Depreciation on Goodwill on Slump Sale of Rs 11,26,05,318/-. 2. It has been observed that the amount of Rs.36,34,10,000/- towards commission on Sales debited by the assessee to P & L account without TDS, was not disallowed

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 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 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. ING. VYSYA BANK LIMITED

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

97,75,000/- had been written off during the previous year and charged to profit and loss account. It was claimed that the aforesaid amount has become irrecoverable and therefore, a deduction was claimed on account of bad debts under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. The Assessing Officer held that since the aforesaid amounts were subject matter

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

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

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been preferred by the revenue which was admitted by a Bench of this Court on 02.06.2014 to consider the following substantial questions of law: 1. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified

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

M/S INDUS TOWERS LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

In the result, we pass the following order:

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR

depreciation, it ‘crms (a i’s that t’it 9rc,cg3dure (icOptLd his hit ir.t o,nc un rlcpriruneru ftt i xtzirurj .zn)qr “LUU’V 1.4 .Ji,_. j%; c ‘ iion l.eu GIL u_’ ic’,S;, citLd 11W’ Lfl%i t Oil the. utaN” ii-Le ii i tqitally