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

deeming the total income to be 30 per cent of the book profit, the deductions claimed are not ignored as contended by the appellants but are a necessary ingredient of the formula for applying the fictional total income. The decisions cited in the context of the operation of statutory fictions are not apposite as there is no notional or fictional

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

deemed to have included rights of management or control or any other rights whatsoever. Based on such an analogy, rights acquired on payment of non-compete fee are property and hence assumes the character of a capital asset. Such an asset is an intangible asset and thus will be entitled for depreciation. 13.11. Mr. Datar then referred to the word

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

dividends paid or proposed.” Provisions of Income Tax Rules, 1962: “Depreciation. 5.(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), the allowance under clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 32 in respect of depreciation of any block of assets shall be calculated at the percentages specified in the second column of the Table in Appendix

M/S.VIRTUAL SOFT SYSTEMS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-I

depreciation allowance which it was entitled to under the Income-tax Act came to Rs.7,84,063 thus converting the profit into a loss of Rs.2,19,848 for income-tax purposes, and the company was adjudged not to be liable to income-tax for the relevant assessment year 1951-52. The company, however, declared dividends in that year amounting

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

dividend income accruing to the estate of a deceased, this court held that as Parliament did not make “any provision generally for assessment of income receivable by the estate of the deceased person, the expression "any tax which would have been payable by him under this Act if he had not died" cannot be deemed to have supplied the machinery

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I vs. M/S RELIANCE ENERGY LTD (FORMERLY BSES LTD.) THROUGH ITS M.D

The Appeal is dismissed qua the issue of the extent of deduction under

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO

depreciation. 2 | P a g e The Assessing Officer considered the revised claim of the Assessee under Section 80-IA and determined the amount eligible for deduction under Section 80-IA at Rs. 492,78,60,973/- against the Assessee’s claim of Rs. 546,26,01,224/-. However, the Assessing Officer stated in the assessment order that the actual

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

deemed to be an amount equal to thirty per cent of such book profit. (2) Every assessee, being a company, shall, for the purposes of this section prepare its profit and loss account for the relevant previous year in accordance with the provisions of Parts II and III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956(1 of 1956) : Provided

JT.COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,SURAT vs. SAHELI LEASING & INDUSTRIES LTD

Appeals stand allowed as mentioned hereinabove but with

depreciation, the taxable income of the Assessee was NIL and hence, there was no tax liability. According to Assessee, in such a case no penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) could have been levied. 16. Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, Special Range-2, C.As. @ SLP (C) No. 5241 of 2007 etc…. (contd.) 7 Surat, on the basis of the discussion

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

Appeals are allowed

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

depreciation, Section 32AB gives deductions in respect of certain investment allowance. After providing for admissible deductions to an assessee, income under this head is ascertained. In a similar way, as noted above, income under the other heads is worked out. If a particular assessee has income under more than one heads, in the income tax returns, the said assessee would

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

dividend to the extent of the accumulated profits held by the company. The provision was challenged. It was noticed that while introducing the amendment, the Finance Minister assured that outstanding loans and advances – otherwise liable to taxation as dividends in AY 1955-56, would not be subjected to tax if it were shown that they had been genuinely refunded

MANSAROVAR COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

deemed service of notice. (vi) The plea of the Assessees that the proceedings under Section 148 of the Act gets vitiated in the absence of a specific order vesting the ACIT with the powers under Section 127 of the Act to issue notice under Section 148 of the Act is rejected. (vii) The plea of the Assessees that the notices