COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI RUPESH

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

Section 32 of the Act, was of the view that the assessee has incurred capital expenditure and therefore is entitled to depreciation thereon @ 10%. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer disallowed

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI RUPESH

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

Section 32 of the Act, was of the view that the assessee has incurred capital expenditure and therefore is entitled to depreciation thereon @ 10%. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer disallowed

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

Section 32(1) of the Act, which was actually existing in the earlier concern viz., the partnership firm. Therefore, the original assets, which were added in the company at the time of succession cannot be considered for the purposes of depreciation. Accordingly, the claim for depreciation on intangible assets was disallowed

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S NIRANI SUGARS LTD.,

In the result, the impugned orders passed by

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,P.G.M.PATIL

32 of the I.T.Act there is no specific provision of exercising of the option within a particular time, therefore to that extent the condition imposed under Rule 5(1A) proviso (ii) is invalid or not? 2. I.T.A. No.100098/2015 pertains to Assessment Year 2009-10, whereas I.T.A. No.100099/2015 pertains to Assessment Year 2010-11. Since common question of law and fact

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S NIRANI SUGARS LTD.,

In the result, the impugned orders passed by

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,P.G.M.PATIL

32 of the I.T.Act there is no specific provision of exercising of the option within a particular time, therefore to that extent the condition imposed under Rule 5(1A) proviso (ii) is invalid or not? 2. I.T.A. No.100098/2015 pertains to Assessment Year 2009-10, whereas I.T.A. No.100099/2015 pertains to Assessment Year 2010-11. Since common question of law and fact

MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

Disallowance under Section 40(a)(i): Particulars Disputed Income Disputed tax [i.e., tax @ 33.99% on disputed income] Payable under DTVSV Act @ 50% of tax As per Petitioner 37,28,12,027 12,67,18,808 6,33,59,404 As per Revenue 66,66,00,074 22,65,77,365 11,32

MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

Disallowance under Section 40(a)(i): Particulars Disputed Income Disputed tax [i.e., tax @ 33.99% on disputed income] Payable under DTVSV Act @ 50% of tax As per Petitioner 37,28,12,027 12,67,18,808 6,33,59,404 As per Revenue 66,66,00,074 22,65,77,365 11,32

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

disallow the claim of Depreciation under Section 32 of the Act in the hands of the Assessee, being a Charitable

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT (A) vs. M/S AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

disallow the claim of Depreciation under Section 32 of the Act in the hands of the Assessee, being a Charitable

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX vs. M/S KAWASAKI MICRO ELECTRONICS INC

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act. It is also submitted that depreciation is a deduction of expenditure for the period of the asset acquired at the prescribed rate of the percentage. Hence, the depreciation would par take the character of deduction as referred to Section 40 of the Act. It is also argued that Section 32

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CISCO SYSTEMS

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

disallowed the excess depreciation claimed on networking equipments. 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru, thereafter issued a notice under Section 263 of the Act of 1961 on 5.3.2015 and called upon the assessee to explain as to why the assessment order passed by the assessing officer under Section 143(3) of the Act of 1961 should

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act was given. The Assessing Officer, as well as the Appellate Commissioner, disallowed the claim

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

disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) on the transactions discussed above. He shall give the assessee an opportunity to furnish necessary evidence to establish his claim and explain why the proposed additions be not made to income. The AO shall consider the facts, and the results of any enquiries made, as well as the explanation furnished by the assessee, and make

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

section 132 of the Act? b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal 3 was justified in confirming the decision of commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) order and thereby upholding the disallowance of Rs.4,94,32

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

disallowed the claim of respondent-assessee, treating a sum of `14,396/- for the assessment year 1986-87, `1,32,315/- for the assessment year 1987-88 and `68,570/- for the assessment year 1992-93 as an expenditure under Section

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI SRI ADICHUNCHUNAGIRI SHIKSHANA TRUST

In the result, all the appeals are

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

32(1)(ii) and Section 35(2)(iv) of the 1965 Act. It was the case of the assessee claiming a specified percentage of the written down value of the asset as depreciation besides claiming deduction in 5 consecutive years of the expenditure incurred on the acquisition of the capital asset used for scientific research. In such circumstances, the Apex

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI ADICHUNCHUNGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

32(1)(ii) and Section 35(2)(iv) of 19 the 1965 Act. It was the case of the assessee claiming a specified percentage of the written down value of the asset as depreciation besides claiming deduction in 5 consecutive years of the expenditure incurred on the acquisition of the capital asset used for scientific research. In such circumstances

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

32(1)(ii) and Section 35(2)(iv) of 19 the 1965 Act. It was the case of the assessee claiming a specified percentage of the written down value of the asset as depreciation besides claiming deduction in 5 consecutive years of the expenditure incurred on the acquisition of the capital asset used for scientific research. In such circumstances