THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II

section 80J in relation to the profits and gains of the industrial undertaking; and (iv) in computing the depreciation allowance

THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II

section 80J in relation to the profits and gains of the industrial undertaking; and (iv) in computing the depreciation allowance

M/S THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- II

section 80J in relation to the profits and gains of the industrial undertaking; and (iv) in computing the depreciation allowance

THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II

section 80J in relation to the profits and gains of the industrial undertaking; and (iv) in computing the depreciation allowance

THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II

section 80J in relation to the profits and gains of the industrial undertaking; and (iv) in computing the depreciation allowance

M/S THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -II

section 80J in relation to the profits and gains of the industrial undertaking; and (iv) in computing the depreciation allowance

SIDWAL REFRIGERATION IND. LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8(1)

depreciation on plant and machinery for benefit under Section 80IA/80IB of the Income Tax Act(in short „Act‟). The assessee had carried out trial production from 20th March, 1998. On that basis the Assessing Officer treated assessment year 1998-99 as the initial year for benefit under the aforesaid provision. Since this benefit is allowable for five years, according

SHIVALIK PRINTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessees’ appeals in ITA nos

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

80J(6A) which are similar to the provisions of section 80-IA(7), we feel that the Tribunal has arrived at the correct conclusion that the requirement of filing the audit report along with the return is not mandatory but directory and that if the audit report is filed at any time before the framing of the assessment, the requirement

M/S. SHIVALIK PRINTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessees’ appeals in ITA nos

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

80J(6A) which are similar to the provisions of section 80-IA(7), we feel that the Tribunal has arrived at the correct conclusion that the requirement of filing the audit report along with the return is not mandatory but directory and that if the audit report is filed at any time before the framing of the assessment, the requirement

COMMISSIONER OF INCOEM TAX DEL vs. UNIPATCH RUBBER LTD.

Appeal is dismissed

80J in relation to the profits and gains of an industrial undertaking or the business of a hotel to which this section applies, effect shall first be given to the provisions of this section. [Deduction in respect of profits and gains from industrial undertakings after a certain date, etc. 80-I. (1) Where the gross total income of an assessee

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL-III vs. UNIPATCH RUBBER LTD

Appeal is dismissed

80J in relation to the profits and gains of an industrial undertaking or the business of a hotel to which this section applies, effect shall first be given to the provisions of this section. [Deduction in respect of profits and gains from industrial undertakings after a certain date, etc. 80-I. (1) Where the gross total income of an assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE-12(1), NEW DELHI vs. INFRASOFT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, MUMBAI

Accordingly, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Dcit, Vs. Infrasoft Technologies Ltd, Circle-12(1), Unit No. 86 & 87, Sdf Iii, New Delhi Seepz Midc, Andheri East, Mumbai Pan: Aaacb2817R (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation on computer necessary is of ₹ 519,042 was made. Against this order the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT – (A) who passed an order dated 26/10/2012 rejecting the appeal of the assessee. The appeal of the assessee was filed before the coordinate bench against the order of the learned CIT– A. The coordinate bench passed an order

RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, we direct the AO to reduce the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act by the amount of reversal of the provision of Rs

Bench: Sh. I. C.Sudhir Judicialmember & Sh. Prashant Maharishia.Y.: - 2008-09 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs Acit 12Th Floor, Devika Tower, Range -15 6, Nehru Place New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacr0127N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section (2) to Section 14A of the Act and sub Rule (1) to Rule 8D of the Rules. 14. The view and legal ratio expressed above is not being elucidated for the first time. The Delhi High Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 347 ITR 272/203 Taxman 364/15 taxmann.com 390 has observed:- 'Scope of sub-sections

CIT vs. KRIBHCO

depreciation and unabsorbed development rebate while computing the total income on the basis that the total income spoken of by sub-section (1) means commercial profits.” 27. It was accordingly observed that on proper construction of Section 80E(1) full effect has to be give to the word „such profits‟ and this was not possible without computing the income

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

depreciation and unabsorbed development rebate while computing the total income on the basis that the total income spoken of by sub-section (1) means commercial profits.” 27. It was accordingly observed that on proper construction of Section 80E(1) full effect has to be give to the word „such profits‟ and this was not possible without computing the income

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GUJARAT GUARDIAN LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue against the direction of the Ld

Bench: Shri S.K.Yadav & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. Guajarat Guardian Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 4-7/C, Dda Shopping Centre, Circle-12(1), (Now Circle- New Friends Colony, 10(2), New Delhi Cr Building, Ip Estate, Pan: Aaacg1622K New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. M/S. Guajarat Guardian Ltd, Circle-12(1), (Now Circle-10(2), 4-7/C, Dda Shopping Cr Building, Ip Estate, Centre, New Delhi New Friends Colony, New Delhi Pan: Aaacg1622K (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation at the rate of 15% amounting to Rs. 81,94,914/– on the said expenditure. The Ld. DRP did not noticed that assessee had bifurcated the said expenditure being 14% of engineering fees amounting to Rs. 8 194914/– is revenue in nature and balance amount as Gujarat Guradian Limited V DCIT DCIT V Gujarat Guradian Limited

ACIT, KASHIPUR vs. M/S. SUJATHA BIO TECH, KASHIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Anubhav Sharma

80J (corresponding to section 15-C of the I.T. Act, 1922) was being considered. In this case also the machinery actually used for the purposes of business was determined to decide the case. Thus the Appellant succeeds with respect to these 5 grounds.” 6. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal

M/S. SUKRIPAM WORLDWIDE,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddyay: 2010-11 Sukripam Worldwide Vs. Acit, Circle 59(3) S 205, Rajkamal Sadan New Delhi Preet Vihar, Commercial Complex New Delhi

depreciation in Appendix I to the Income Tax Rules, 1961.” (ii) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s India Cine Agencies vs. CIT, Madras in appeal nos. 3649-3650 of 2003 judgement dt. 12.11.12008 held as follows. “2. As noted above, the core issue is whether activity undertaken was manufacture or production. 3. In Black