PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CONSUMER HEALTHCARE LTD

Bench: MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL,MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

depreciation should be allowed in the Assessment Year 1998-99. The Revenue is not disputing that assessee was entitled to 100% depreciation

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FARIDABAD vs. M/S NHPC LTD

The appeals stand disposed of

Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL

depreciation claimed on land after amortization of land by the assessee because there is no depreciation allowable on land under

M/S VIJAY KUMAR GARG CONTRACTORS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed

Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

depreciation cts detailed above, it is obvious ee had shown GP rate of 10.87% ssment years 90-91 and 91-92 this

COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, P.KULA vs. M/S HARYANA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD.

Appeal is dismissed in view of

Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN

depreciation of the earlier years, form part of the depreciation of t depreciation for the succeeding y carried forward as the valid

M/S Y.S. AND CO-OWNERS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ETC.

Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Depreciation Gurdeep Sin purchase of (Appeals), ho income recei the same as u to be not fall income from 5. Amritsar

CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OSD LUDHIANA vs. M/S CEIGALL INDIA LTD

Bench: Cit(A). The Same Was Partly Allowed. The Addition Made By Applying Net Profit Dinesh Kumar 2022.10.16 16:54 I Attest To The Accuracy & Integrity Of This Document

depreciation was allowed by him or not, as was claimed by the Ld. CIT DR during the course of hearing

INDUSTRIAL CABLES PVT. LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX & ANR.

Bench: MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL,MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

depreciation of any building used as a guest-house or depreciation of any assets in a guest-house.” 4. It is apt to mention

M/S KING EXPORTS THRU MADAN LAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA

Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I LUDHIANA vs. M/S VERDHMAN TEXTILES LTD. LUDHIANA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI,MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

depreciation of capital expenditure incurred on leased building and following the said explanation, it was held by CIT(A) that

CIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S PUNJAB SMALL IND. AND EXPORT CORP. LTD.

The appeal stands disposed of

Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

depreciation. The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) reversed the order and held the expenditure to be revenue in nature. The order

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S PUNJAB SMALL INDUSTRIES & EXPORT CORPN. LTD

The appeal stands disposed of

Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

depreciation. The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) reversed the order and held the expenditure to be revenue in nature. The order

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SWARAJ ENGINES LTD MOHALI

Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section

C I T vs. M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE CONSUMER HELATHCARE LTD.

Bench: MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL,MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

depreciation @60% had aforesaid expenditure been treated as capital. 5.3 Learned counsel for the respondent submits that issue involved is no more

C I T vs. M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE LTD.

Bench: MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL,MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

depreciation, in accordance with law, on aforesaid expenses declared as capital expenses. 5. Disposed of. 6. Pending application(s), if any, stands

MANGE RAM MITTAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

depreciation of section 32;] g s f f s n d e r h n n d l e f r f r d n VARINDER

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, CHD vs. M/S VENUS REMEDIES LTD.

Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Depreciation of nditure on R&D u/s 35(2) of revenue expenses on scientific 36,344/- to the Baddi Unit