← All Phrases

“Section 10(2)(vi)”

Section References (mined)Section 10Section 10(2)(vi)24 judgments

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. TRILOK DEWAN, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 302/JPR/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

this\nremissness on the part of the Income-tax Officer in not applying the law contained\nin clause (c) of the proviso to section 10(2)(vi) of the Act of 1922. As observed by\nShah J. in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bhanji Lavji

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SARITA DEWAN, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 300/JPR/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

this\nremissness on the part of the Income-tax Officer in not applying the law contained\nin clause (c) of the proviso to section 10(2)(vi) of the Act of 1922. As observed by\nShah J. in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bhanji Lavji

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SARITA DEWAN, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 299/JPR/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

this\nremissness on the part of the Income-tax Officer in not applying the law contained\nin clause (c) of the proviso to section 10(2)(vi) of the Act of 1922. As observed by\nShah J. in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bhanji Lavji

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SNEHLATA AGARWAL, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 298/JPR/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

this\nremissness on the part of the Income-tax Officer in not applying the law contained\nin clause (c) of the proviso to section 10(2)(vi) of the Act of 1922. As observed by\nShah J. in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bhanji Lavji

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SNEHLATA AGARWAL, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 297/JPR/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

this\nremissness on the part of the Income-tax Officer in not applying the law contained\nin clause (c) of the proviso to section 10(2)(vi) of the Act of 1922. As observed by\nShah J. in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bhanji Lavji

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. USHA BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 296/JPR/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

this\nremissness on the part of the Income-tax Officer in not applying the law contained\nin clause (c) of the proviso to section 10(2)(vi) of the Act of 1922. As observed by\nShah J. in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bhanji Lavji

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR , JAIPUR vs. USHA BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 295/JPR/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

this\nremissness on the part of the Income-tax Officer in not applying the law contained\nin clause (c) of the proviso to section 10(2)(vi) of the Act of 1922. As observed by\nShah J. in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bhanji Lavji

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUBHASH CHANDRA BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 293/JPR/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

this\nremissness on the part of the Income-tax Officer in not applying the law contained\nin clause (c) of the proviso to section 10(2)(vi) of the Act of 1922. As observed by\nShah J. in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bhanji Lavji

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VIPUL BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 292/JPR/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

this\nremissness on the part of the Income-tax Officer in not applying the law contained\nin clause (c) of the proviso to section 10(2)(vi) of the Act of 1922. As observed by\nShah J. in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bhanji Lavji

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. PRIYA DEWAN, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 289/JPR/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

this\nremissness on the part of the Income-tax Officer in not applying the law contained\nin clause (c) of the proviso to section 10(2)(vi) of the Act of 1922. As observed by\nShah J. in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bhanji Lavji

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. PRIYA DEWAN, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 288/JPR/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jul 2025

this\nremissness on the part of the Income-tax Officer in not applying the law contained\nin clause (c) of the proviso to section 10(2)(vi) of the Act of 1922. As observed by\nShah J. in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bhanji Lavji

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. ANIMESH AGARWAL, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 290/JPR/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Jun 2025

this\nremissness on the part of the Income-tax Officer in not applying the law contained\nin clause (c) of the proviso to section 10(2)(vi) of the Act of 1922. As observed by\nShah J. in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bhanji Lavji

DCIT 3(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NEVILLE TULI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

ITA 3203/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Ld. Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Preetam kumar Turerao, Ld. SR. AR
Section 24Section 250Section 55

actual cost to the assessee of the new machinery acquired by it for the purpose of allowance of development rebate in terms of section 10(2)(vi)(b) of the Act. The reasoning of the High Court was that costs which were essentially necessary for a particular Assessee to incur

ACIT, CIRCLE CC 15, NEW DELHI vs. ALKA MENDIRATTA , DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessees are also dismissed

ITA 1864/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goel, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 69

Refrigeration Industries (P.) Ltd -SC-155 ITR 711, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that- "10. It is true that proviso (b)to section 10(2)(vi) (Corresponding to section 32(2) of Income Tax Act 1961) creates a legal fiction and under that fiction unabsorbed depreciation either with

ACIT, CC-15, NEW DELHI vs. YASH PAL MENDIRATTA, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessees are also dismissed

ITA 1863/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goel, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 69

Refrigeration Industries (P.) Ltd -SC-155 ITR 711, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that- "10. It is true that proviso (b)to section 10(2)(vi) (Corresponding to section 32(2) of Income Tax Act 1961) creates a legal fiction and under that fiction unabsorbed depreciation either with

ACIT, CC-14, DELHI vs. MAYFAIR RESORTS INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2008/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2023AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Yudhister Mehtani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT(DR)
Section 292CSection 69Section 69A

Refrigeration Industries (P.)v Ltd - SC- 155 ITR 711 Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that - "10. It is true that proviso (b)to section 10(2)(vi)( Corresponding to section 32(2) of Income Tax Act 1961) creates a legal fiction and under that fiction unabsorbed depreciation either with

CHAMBER OF INDIAN CHARITABLE TRUSTS,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT/ COMM OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2169/MUM/2021[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 2168 & 2169/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2022-23) Chamber Of Indian बिधम/ Pcit Charitable Trusts Mumbai-400020. Vs. Gala No.328-332, Linkway Estates, New Link Road, Malad (W), Mumbai- 400064. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaicc9627J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. J. Pardiwala & Mr. Sukhsagar Syal. Revenue By: Shri Nihar Samal (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Trust Against The Imposition Of Certain Impugned Conditions In The Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(E), Mumbai Dated 24.09.2021 & 24.05.2021, Whereby The Ld. Cit(E) Granted Registration U/S 12Ab(1)(A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) & Under Clause (Iii) Of The Second Proviso To Section 80G(5) Of The Act

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala & MrFor Respondent: Shri Nihar Samal (Sr. AR)
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)

permissible for the rule-making authority to provide different percentages of depreciation on the four types of assets as are mentioned in section 10(2)(vi), viz., buildings, machinery, plant or furniture as the property of the assessee. But the question is whether it is permissible for the rule-making ... authority in view of the language of section 10(2)(vi) to provide for a nil rate of depreciation irrespective of whether this is for a class of asset or a class of cases A.Ys.2022-23 Chamber of Indian Charitable Trust based on the period for which the asset

CHAMBER OF INDIAN CHARITABLE TRUSTS,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT/ COMM OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2168/MUM/2021[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 2168 & 2169/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2022-23) Chamber Of Indian बिधम/ Pcit Charitable Trusts Mumbai-400020. Vs. Gala No.328-332, Linkway Estates, New Link Road, Malad (W), Mumbai- 400064. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaicc9627J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. J. Pardiwala & Mr. Sukhsagar Syal. Revenue By: Shri Nihar Samal (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Trust Against The Imposition Of Certain Impugned Conditions In The Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(E), Mumbai Dated 24.09.2021 & 24.05.2021, Whereby The Ld. Cit(E) Granted Registration U/S 12Ab(1)(A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) & Under Clause (Iii) Of The Second Proviso To Section 80G(5) Of The Act

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala & MrFor Respondent: Shri Nihar Samal (Sr. AR)
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)

permissible for the rule-making authority to provide different percentages of depreciation on the four types of assets as are mentioned in section 10(2)(vi), viz., buildings, machinery, plant or furniture as the property of the assessee. But the question is whether it is permissible for the rule-making ... authority in view of the language of section 10(2)(vi) to provide for a nil rate of depreciation irrespective of whether this is for a class of asset or a class of cases A.Ys.2022-23 Chamber of Indian Charitable Trust based on the period for which the asset

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. JAGSON INTERNATIONAL LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.No.276/Del

ITA 276/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Rahul PrabhakarFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Maurya, CIT
Section 115JSection 14A

assessee. In Machinery Manufacturers Corporation Ltd. v. CIT [1957] 31 ITR 203 (Bom), it was observed that the expression "used" in section 10(2)(vi) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as "the old Act"), corresponding to section 32 of the Act has to be given

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. JAGSON INTERNATIONAL LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.No.276/Del

ITA 1002/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Rahul PrabhakarFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Maurya, CIT
Section 115JSection 14A

assessee. In Machinery Manufacturers Corporation Ltd. v. CIT [1957] 31 ITR 203 (Bom), it was observed that the expression "used" in section 10(2)(vi) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as "the old Act"), corresponding to section 32 of the Act has to be given

Showing 1–20 of 24 · Page 1 of 2