MISS DHUN DADABHOY KAPADIA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY

depreciation in the price of her old ordinary shares, she suffered a capital loss in those shares to the extent of Rs. 37,630, and she was entitled to set off this loss against the capital gain

GARDEN SILK WEAVING FACTORY, SURAT vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,GUJARAT, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals for both the assessment years

capital expenditure and would have been excluded. He further says that depreciation is a charge on the profits of a business. Bearing these two factors in mind, he urges that the expression "loss of profits and gains

SHARP BUSINESS SYSTEM THR. FINANCE DIRECTOR MR. YOSHIHISA MIZUNO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III N.D

The appeals are hereby disposed of in terms of

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA

capital expenditure, the same would be entitled for depreciation. ITAT, therefore, directed the assessing officer to allow the claim of depreciation on the amount of non-compete fee paid treating the same as intangible asset. 10.7. Assailing the aforesaid finding of the ITAT, revenue preferred appeal before the Bombay High Court being Income 18 Tax Appeal No.556

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(CENTRAL) vs. M/S. GWALIOR RAYON SILK MFG.(WVG.)CO.LTD

The appeal is partly allowed

capital expenditure incurred by an assessee on construction of road even within factory premises is not entitled to depreciation as a deduction in the computation of profits and gains

PARASHURAM POTTERY WORKS CO. LTD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE-1, WARD 'A', RAJKOT,GUJARAT

depreciation had been allowed in respect of items of capital assets in ques- tion during the previous years. Under section 10 of the 1922 Act an assessee is liable to pay tax under the head "Profits and Gains

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA MILLS

The appeal is dismissed

Capital gains. Various sections deal with how income, profits and gains under each http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 21 head have to be computed. Section 10 deals with the computation of profits and gains of any business carried on by an assessee. Section 10(2) prescribes the allowances which have to be deducted before computing

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY vs. H. HOLCK LARSEN

gain, the appellant claimed that on the issue of the new shares, the value of her old shares depreciated, since the market quotation of the old shares which was Rs. 253 per share on 1st June, 1956 fell to Rs. 198.75 on 4th June, 1956 and that a result of this depreciation she suffered a capital

BHARAT FIRE AND GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. NEW DELHI vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, we agree with the High Court that the answer

depreciation in the value of the public houses below the amount stated in the company’s balance sheet, applied for sanction of the Court to a scheme for reduction of capital whereby the company, while retaining a small portion of the reserve, attributed to, the reserve more than its rateable proportion and to capital account less than that

A.L.A. FIRM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS

capital gain but the case has proceeded on the footing that such a statement was there before the officer. This, therefore, is nothing but a case of "change of opinion". On the other hand, the authorities and the Tribunal have drawn attention to the fact that the return, the S. 143(2) notice and assessment were all on the same

SHIV RAJ GUPTA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI IV

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

capital, depreciation, reserves etc., a part of it should in all fairness go to the employees.” Also, this Court in S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (2007) 1 SCC 781 held as follows: “36. We agree with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Dalmia Cement (B) Ltd. [(2002) 254 ITR 377 (Del)] that once

NECTAR BEVERAGES PVT. LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX

capital gains on the ground that the assets stood depreciated at 100% under the proviso to Section 32(1)(ii) and hence

KILLICK NIXON LTD., MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMNR. OF INCOME TAX,MUMBAI

In the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High

capital gains to the extent of Rs. 4,00,000.00. (d) Disallowance under Rule 6D to the extent of Rs. 31,963.00." Being aggrieved by the decision of the CIT (Appeals), the assessee carried an appeal before the Income Tax Tribunal in respect of premium, depreciation

M/S. VIJAY INDUSTRIES vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

capital gains and income from other sources. Insofar as income under the head ‘profits and gains of business or professions’ is concerned, provisions thereto are contained in Sections 28 to 44DB of the Act. Section 28 specifies various incomes which shall be chargeable to income tax under this head. Thereafter, Section 29 provides that income referred to in Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

depreciation; or (iv) the amount of profits derived by an industrial undertaking from the business of generation or generation and distribution of power; or (v) the amount of profits derived by an industrial undertaking located in an industrially backward State or district as referred to in sub-section (4) and sub- section (5) of section 80-IB, for the assessment

PUNJAB DISTILLING INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PUNJAB

The appeal is allowed in part to this

Gains. (4) Whether the accumulated profits could be considered as dividend deemed to have been distributed in the assessment year 1955-56 in view of the certificate granted by the Registrar of Companies under Section 61(4) of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, or could be considered us dividend deemed to have been distributed in the assessment year

M/S MANGALORE GANESH BEEDI WORKS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MYSORE

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

capital gains. The decision of the Tribunal has been accepted by the Revenue and we really see no reason why a different conclusion should be arrived at in so far as the Assessee is concerned. 27. The High Court denied any benefit to the Assessee under Section 35A and Section 35AB of the Act since it was held that what

M/S. SOUTHERN TECHNOLOGIES LTD. vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, COIMBATORE

depreciable assets, capital gains, etc. which items are all credited to P&L Account, but, which are exempted under the IT Act would