UNIVERSAL PLAST LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CALCUTTA

In the result, we hold that both the High Courts were right in answering

depreciation on newly acquired assets, bonus and gratuity to employees nor for any liability in respect of Sales Tax or tax on incomes, profits and gains made by the Licensee so far as they relate to the Licensee’s part of the income from the UPL factory and the Licensee hereby indemnified the Licensor against all such debts, liabilities, costs

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

Business Profit 600 Income subject to charge under the Income Tax Act by application of Rule 8 (40% of 600) 240 Illustration ‘B’ Rs. Income from sale of tea (40% of 1000) 400 Less: Expenses - Depreciation

PLASTIBLENDS INDIA LIMITED THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR vs. ADDL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE 8(2) MUMBAI

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

depreciation of Rs.64,98,968/- in 5 accordance with the Companies Act, 1956. The assessee filed its return of income for Assessment Year 1997-98 determining the gross total income at Rs.2,46,04,962/-. The gross total income included profits and gains derived from business

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

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

depreciation under Section 32 of the 1 Page 2 JUDGMENT Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”). The assessment years involved are 1991-1992 to 1996-1997. 2. The assessee is a public limited company, classified by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) as a non-banking finance company. It is engaged in the business

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. UNITED PROVINCES ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO

In the result, appeal is allowed

business profits. It does not reach the assessee as his profits: it reaches him as part of the capital invested by him, the fiction created by section 10(2)(vii), second proviso, notwithstanding. The reason for introducing this fiction appears to be this. Where in the previous years, by the depreciation allowance, the taxable income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

business, and the income earned is not derived in the course of any commercial activity. 65. Learned counsel also submitted that the assessee carries on R&D work which enables educational institutions with Information and Communication Technology infrastructure for making education reach the public at large solely for charitable purpose and further reliance was placed upon ICAI Accounting Research Foundation

PRIDE FORAMER S.A. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

business expenditure under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act 19612, as well as carrying 1 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. 2 Hereinafter, ‘the Act’. Digitally signed by ARJUN BISHT Date: 2025.10.17 15:19:21 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified Page 2 of 13 forward of unabsorbed depreciation

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

business income of the assessee under Section 41(2). This was because prior to the assessment year 1988-89, Section 41(2) inter alia provided for balancing charge which was chargeable as income taxable under the 1961 Act. However, with effect from assessment year 1988-89, Section 41(2), which inter alia dealt with profit on sale of depreciable

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

Appeals are allowed

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

depreciation and investment allowance. To put it otherwise, as per the Department, the income of the assessee is to computed in accordance with the provisions contained in Sections 28 to 44DB which are the provisions for computation of ‘income’ under the head ‘profits and gains of business

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

business income. (b) Claim for bad debt of Rs. 68,02,046.00. (c) Determination of 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

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

business of the assessee. Accordingly, the assessee was held to be not entitled to depreciation. Consequently, appeal of the assessee was dismissed by CIT(A). 7.5. Assessee preferred further appeal before the Income

M/S KARNATAKA SMALL S.INDT.DEV.COR.LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,BANGALORE

business loss, unabsorbed depreciation etc., would have been adjusted and set off had the assessee been assessed to tax in the regular way in accordance with the provisions of Sec.28 to 43 of the Income

VATSALA SHENOY vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

depreciation in the assets of the firm and continued to do business in view of the order of this court that there was no agreement among the partners to continue the business during the pendency of the winding up proceedings. Further having regard to Clause 16 of the Partnership Deed of the dissolved firm, it is clear that the partners

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S WOODWARD GOVERNOR INDIA P. LTD

income chargeable under the head “profits and gains of business”. In Sections 30 to 36, the expressions “expenses incurred” as well as “allowances and depreciation

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

business of running the trucks on hire and, therefore, the assessee was not entitled to claim higher rate of depreciation at 40%. This finding of the AO was reversed by CIT(A) vide order dated 29th October, 2004. It was held by CIT(A) that transportation income

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

The appeal is partly allowed

depreciation was to compute the net taxable income,; that unless roads are laid it is not possible for the convenient carrying on of the business

M/S. SYNCO INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. ASSESSING OFFICER,INCOME TAX MUMBAI &ANR

income from another and Section 72 providing for carry forward and set off of business losses. Section 32(2) makes provisions for carry forward and set off of the unabsorbed depreciation

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

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 made by the assessee as per the Income