THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. INDUS FILA LTD

In the result, the order passed by the Income Tax

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

set off of accumulated loss and unabsorbed depreciation allowance in amalgamation or demerger, etc. 72A. (1) Where there has been

M/S. KARNATAKA INSTRADE CORPORATION LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

setting off unabsorbed depreciation against the income of the current assessment year on the facts and in the circumstances of the case? (5) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the CIT (A) erred in directing the assessing officer to allow the brought forwards loss

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S K B D SUGARS & DISTILLERIES LTD.,

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

set off against the income of the respondent-amalgamated company for the relevant assessment year, the Assessing Officer disallowed the business loss and unabsorbed depreciation

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

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

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

losses of the earlier years has to be adjusted or set off and ratio equally holds good in respect of unabsorbed depreciation

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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

set-off of business losses. In the present case, though there may have been change in the shareholding in the assessment year 2002-03, yet, there was no change of control of the Company, as the control remained with the ABL as the voting power of ABL, along with its subsidiary Company APIL, remained at 51%. The Supreme Court further

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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

set-off of business losses. In the present case, though there may have been change in the shareholding in the assessment year 2002-03, yet, there was no change of control of the Company, as the control remained with the ABL as the voting power of ABL, along with its subsidiary Company APIL, remained at 51%. The Supreme Court further

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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

set-off of business losses. In the present case, though there may have been change in the shareholding in the assessment year 2002-03, yet, there was no change of control of the Company, as the control remained with the ABL as the voting power of ABL, along with its subsidiary Company APIL, remained at 51%. The Supreme Court further

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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

set-off of business losses. In the present case, though there may have been change in the shareholding in the assessment year 2002-03, yet, there was no change of control of the Company, as the control remained with the ABL as the voting power of ABL, along with its subsidiary Company APIL, remained at 51%. The Supreme Court further

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

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

loss is to be first set off and thereafter unabsorbed depreciation treated as current years depreciation under Section 32(2) is to be set

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S MIND TREE LTD

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

setting off of brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation without taking into consideration the amendment to Section 10B91) w.e.f

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

depreciation is again set off or adjusted, but it has already been done earlier in arriving at the gross total income. 34. We reject the contention that computation of business profits for the purpose of section 80HHC(3) of the Act can only be in terms of chapter-IV and as set off or carried forward losses

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

The appeals are allowed only to the aforesaid

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

loss under Section 10A as well as depreciation and the adjustment against the income of the respective assessment year, was at large to be considered. The peculiar circumstances in the case are that in the earlier round of litigation, the question - 8 - of entitlement was considered and further, the computation thereof was indirectly deemed as concluded. The order

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

The appeals are allowed only to the aforesaid

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

loss under Section 10A as well as depreciation and the adjustment against the income of the respective assessment year, was at large to be considered. The peculiar circumstances in the case are that in the earlier round of litigation, the question - 8 - of entitlement was considered and further, the computation thereof was indirectly deemed as concluded. The order

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

set-off of losses in terms of the provisions of the IT Act? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in allowing the depreciation

M/S YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

SET AISDE THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.1191/BANG/2010 DATED 12.09.2011, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal has under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred

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 PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL

Appeal is dismissed; and

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,UMESH M ADIGA

loss brought forward or unabsorbed depreciation whichever is less as per the books of accounts must be permitted to be set

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH THE SECRETARY vs. M/S KARDICOPPAL ESTATE THITHIMATHI

Appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

loss, which has not been determined in pursuance of a return filed under Sec.18 shall be carried forward and set off under this section. 13 Provided (also) that where depreciation