THE PR. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 153A of the Act by - 15 - following the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT V/s. Lancy Constructions?” In ITA Nos.380/2018, 382/2018 to 385/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in allowing the depreciation on capitalization of expenditure incurred during the assessment

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 153A of the Act by - 15 - following the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT V/s. Lancy Constructions?” In ITA Nos.380/2018, 382/2018 to 385/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in allowing the depreciation on capitalization of expenditure incurred during the assessment

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.,

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 153A of the Act by - 15 - following the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT V/s. Lancy Constructions?” In ITA Nos.380/2018, 382/2018 to 385/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in allowing the depreciation on capitalization of expenditure incurred during the assessment

THE PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 153A of the Act by - 15 - following the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT V/s. Lancy Constructions?” In ITA Nos.380/2018, 382/2018 to 385/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in allowing the depreciation on capitalization of expenditure incurred during the assessment

THE PR. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 153A of the Act by - 15 - following the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT V/s. Lancy Constructions?” In ITA Nos.380/2018, 382/2018 to 385/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in allowing the depreciation on capitalization of expenditure incurred during the assessment

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 153A of the Act by - 15 - following the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT V/s. Lancy Constructions?” In ITA Nos.380/2018, 382/2018 to 385/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in allowing the depreciation on capitalization of expenditure incurred during the assessment

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 153A of the Act by - 15 - following the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT V/s. Lancy Constructions?” In ITA Nos.380/2018, 382/2018 to 385/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in allowing the depreciation on capitalization of expenditure incurred during the assessment

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 153A of the Act by - 15 - following the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT V/s. Lancy Constructions?” In ITA Nos.380/2018, 382/2018 to 385/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in allowing the depreciation on capitalization of expenditure incurred during the assessment

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 153A of the Act by - 15 - following the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT V/s. Lancy Constructions?” In ITA Nos.380/2018, 382/2018 to 385/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in allowing the depreciation on capitalization of expenditure incurred during the assessment

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 153A of the Act by - 15 - following the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT V/s. Lancy Constructions?” In ITA Nos.380/2018, 382/2018 to 385/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in allowing the depreciation on capitalization of expenditure incurred during the assessment

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

1, 2004, the said amount shall be refunded to the LESSEE and / or adjusted by the LESSEE against proceeds of the said Instruments.” x x x (iv) Notwithstanding anything contained to the contrary, the rent payable shall be [(Actual Plinth Area + (27% of Actual Plinth Area)) multiplied by Rs.22/-] for the first three years and thereafter

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

1, 2004, the said amount shall be refunded to the LESSEE and / or adjusted by the LESSEE against proceeds of the said Instruments.” x x x (iv) Notwithstanding anything contained to the contrary, the rent payable shall be [(Actual Plinth Area + (27% of Actual Plinth Area)) multiplied by Rs.22/-] for the first three years and thereafter

THE COMMISIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

1, 2004, the said amount shall be refunded to the LESSEE and / or adjusted by the LESSEE against proceeds of the said Instruments.” x x x (iv) Notwithstanding anything contained to the contrary, the rent payable shall be [(Actual Plinth Area + (27% of Actual Plinth Area)) multiplied by Rs.22/-] for the first three years and thereafter

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

153A of the Act was initiated in the assessee’s case for earlier years. In view of this, in the case of assessee the assessment year 2008-09 falls under Section 153B(1)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, the case was posted for hearing by issuance of notice under Section 143(2) on 15.09.2009. 32. It is further contended that

GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

1% - 2% of the dividend income only and the Tribunal erred in confirming the disallowance under Section 14A to an extent of Rs.4,94,32,158/-. It is also urged that the Tribunal erred in not appreciating that having regard to the second proviso to Section 153A

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S VSL MINING COMPANY PVT LTD

Appeal is dismissed as being

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA

1. “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is submitted that the Tribunal erred in holding that assessee-company is entitled for deduction under section 10B of the Act without appreciating that the assessee-company has not exported Article to satisfy the conditions set out in section 10B of the Act? 2. Whether on the facts

RNS INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER

In the result, writ petitions are allowed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice L. Narayana Swamy Writ Petition Nos.46275-46289 Of 2016 (T-It)

153A of the Act for the said Assessment Year calling upon the petitioner to file a return of income. Accordingly, return of income was filed on 24th January 2014 returning the same income as was originally returned under Section 139 of the Act. 4. Subsequently, petitioner filed an application in Form 34-B of the Act before the first respondent

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ATRIA WIND (KADAMBUR) PVT LTD

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

153A or 153C could be done in absence of any incriminating material found in a search under Section 132 of the Act or by requisition under Section 132A of the Act. The relevant extract of the said decision is set out below. "22. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length. 23. The question which