COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S JINDAL STEEL THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

Appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

assessment years 1988- 1989 to 2002-2003 as well as to Appendix-1A. Appendix-1 provides for a table of rates at which depreciation is admissible. While the first column refers to the block

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

assessment year 2003-04 onwards is taxable. Based on this, Mr. Datar submits that for taxing such receipts on account of non-compete fee, there is no distinction for allowing depreciation. Therefore, revenue cannot approbate or reprobate to contend that only positive rights are eligible for claiming depreciation on intangible asset. 13.9. Dehors the aforesaid submission, Mr. Datar further contends

M/S. DYNAMIC ORTHOPEDICS PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN

block of assets as are used for the purposes of the business or profession of the assessee at any time during the previous year.” In this case, the question which arose for determination before the High Court was – whether the ...6/- - 6 - C.I.T.(A) was right in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of depreciation

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 11 (1) BANGALORE vs. M/S ACE MULTI AXES SYSTEMS LTD

Appeals are disposed of in the same terms

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL

assessment order dated 14th December, 2009, disallowing the deduction is as follows : “The same is not acceptable on the ground that the value of plant and machinery has exceeded Rs.1 crores as per the depreciation schedule annexed to the 3CD report which do not come under the purview of the definition of small scale industry for the year ending

HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD. vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,DELHI

The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs

block of assets and claimed depreciation accordingly. The A.O. came to the conclusion that such revision in the actual cost was not admissible as section 43A refers to adjustment qua the actual cost of the machinery on account of increase or decrease in the liability of unpaid loans utilized for the purchase of machinery. 4. Aggrieved by the said decision

M/S. I.C.D.S. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

Assessing Officer and the first appellate authority. Nothing is brought on record, whether the lessees of the vehicles have claimed the depreciation which were used by them. From this the only inference that can be drawn is that the lessees have not claimed depreciation and it is the appellant alone who has claimed the depreciation being the actual owner

JT. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, GUJARAT vs. UNITED PHOSPHOROUS LTD., GUJARAT

Appeal is partly allowed with no order as to cost

depreciation in respect of block of assets. In the case of Mahendra Mills (supra) the concept of block of assets was not there. In our view, substantial question of law did arise for determination before the High Court under Section 260A of the 1961 Act, particularly when Section 34(1) of the 1961 Act stood omitted w.e.f. 1.4.88. The High

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS vs. M/S. LUCAS T.V.S. LTD. PADI CHENNAI

The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent

depreciation in respect of such machinery or plant has been allowed or is allowable under the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or this Act in computing the total income of any person for any period prior to the date of the installation of the machinery or plant by the assessee, (2) An industrial undertaking

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,DIBRUGARH vs. DOOM DOOMA INDIA LTD

block of assets, the AO erred in deducting 100 per cent of the depreciation for the preceding year calculated at the 2 prescribed rate from the opening “written down value”. However, the assessee claimed that only 40 per cent of the depreciation allowed at the prescribed rate ought to have been deducted and not 100 per cent as done

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

depreciable assets costing less than Rs. 5,000/- which did not enter the block of assets during the assessment years

RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD JAIPUR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (ASSESSMENT)

In the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI

assessment year on the 1st day of April, 1991, the deduction in relation to any block of assets under this clause shall, in the case of a company, be restricted to seventy-five per cent of the amount calculated at the percentage, on the written down value of such assets, prescribed under this Act immediately before the commencement

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,GUJARAT vs. GUPTA GLOBAL EXIM (P) LTD

The Appeal stands allowed with no order as

Bench: The High Court Was : Whether The Respondent-Assessee Was

assessment year, in the business of timber trading and it is only occasionally that the trucks owned by the assessee were given out on hire to outside parties and, therefore, the assessee was not in the business of running the trucks on hire and, therefore, the assessee was not entitled to claim higher rate of depreciation at 40%. This finding

M/S. TECHNO SHARES & STOCKS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV

assessment under Section 147 was the claim of depreciation by the assessee on BSE membership card amounting to Rs. 23,65,000/-. The claim of depreciation of the assessee was based on Section 32(1)(ii) which stood inserted by Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998 w.e.f. 1.4.1999. However, the said Section deals with claim for depreciation of items acquired

M/S D. N. SINGH THROUGH PARTNER DUDHESHWAR NATH SINGH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH

depreciation under Section 32. 57. This Court is called upon to decide the ambit of the word ‘owner’ in section 69A in the facts before us. This Court agrees with the High Court that the concept of ‘owner’ cannot be divorced from the context in which the expression is employed. In the case of Jodha Mal (supra), the property undoubtedly

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR vs. MCDOWELL & CO. LTD

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: The High Court Are As Follows: (1) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The I.T.A.T. Was Justified In Holding That The Unpaid Amount Of Bottling Fee Has, On Furnishing Of The Bank Guarantee, To Be Treated As Actual Payment & Accordingly Allowing The Deduction In Respect Of The Same Under Section 43B Of The Act, Even Though The Sum Has Not Been Actually Paid Before The Due Date Of Filing The Return Under Section 139(1) Of The Act. (2) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The I.T.A.T. Was Justified In Allowing The Depreciation On Research & Development Assets Which Related To The Closed Business Of Fast Food Division/Unit Of The Assessee-Company As Such Not Used During The Previous Year? (3) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The I.T.A.T. Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.2,77,887/- 2

depreciation on research & development assets which related to the closed business of fast food division/unit of the assessee-company as such not used during the previous year? (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the I.T.A.T. was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.2,77,887/- 2 being made treating the expenditure incurred in purchase

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN vs. M/S ENRON OIL & GAS INDIA LTD

Bench: Cit(A), Who After Analyzing The Psc Held That Each Co-Venturer In This Case Had Made Contribution At A Certain Rate Whereas The Expenditure Incurred Out Of The Said Contribution Stood Converted On The Basis Of The Previous 2

blocks. A consortium of EOGIL with RIL was given the contract. Later on, ONGC joined. EOGIL with RIL and ONGC executed Production Sharing Contract (PSC) with Government of India. EOGIL was entitled to a participating interest of 30% in the rights and obligations arising under the PSC. RIL was also entitled to participating interest of 30%. ONGC was entitled

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) 2 vs. M/S MAHAGUN REALTORS (P) LTD

The appeal is allowed, in the above terms, without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

depreciation, etc., are allowed to the transferee. Therefore, unlike a winding up, there is no end to the enterprise, with the entity. The enterprise in the case of amalgamation, continues. 31. In Maruti Suzuki (supra), the scheme of amalgamation was approved on 29.01.2013 w.e.f. 01.04.2012, the same was intimated to the AO on 02.04.2013, and the notice under Section

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

block of shares, which was sold at the price of INR 30 per share (when the listed market price of the share was only INR 3 per share). It is stated in the said MoU that the entire sale consideration of Rs.55,83,270/- has since been paid by the SWC group to Shri Gupta, as a result of which