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

depreciation under the provisions of Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Thus, depreciation was not allowable on the expenditure

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

depreciation “actually allowed” would mean depreciation deducted in arriving at the taxable income or the depreciation deducted

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

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

depreciation at normal rate was concerned, the Commissioner (Appeals) agreed with the assessee. However, assessee’s claim for 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. The issue is as to whether claim for deduction on account of depreciation under Section 80-IA is the choice

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

depreciation on the assets of the power generating unit w.e.f. 01.04.1997, the assessee would be entitled to depreciation

MALAYALA MANORAMA CO LTD. vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM

The appeals are allowed and the

depreciation, renewals or diminution in value of fixed assets. If such provision is not made by means of a depreciation

EAST INDIA HOTELS LTD., CALCUTTA vs. COMNR. OF INCOME TAX, CALCUTTA

Appeal is allowed accordingly

depreciation allowance and also extra shift depreciation allowance on the reasoning that there was no prohibition for granting

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

depreciation of Rs. 333,77,70,317/- on written down value of assets instead of 75% depreciation. Under

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

depreciation actually considered for calculating the taxable income shall be the depreciation which is deemed to have been

MCORP GLOBAL PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD

Accordingly, the civil appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed with no order as to costs

Bench: Coming To The Facts, The Following Is The Relationship Between The Parties: - M/S Glass & Ceramic Decorators Was The Manufacturer Of Soft Drink Bottles. - Assessee Was The ‘Lessor’. - M/S Coolade Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Was The ‘Lessee’. 4. During The Relevant Assessment Year, The Assessee Carried On The Business Of Trading In Lamination Machines & Binding & Punching Machines. In Addition, It Was Also Engaged In The Leasing Business. During The Year In Question, The Assessee Had Bought 5,46,000 Soft Drink Bottles From M/S Glass & Ceramic Decorators Worth Rs. 19,54,953/-. The Bottles Were Directly Supplied To M/S Coolade Beverages Pvt. Ltd. (“M/S Coolade” For Short) In Terms Of Lease Dated 15.2.1991. Vide Assessment Order Dated 28.3.1994, The Ao Found That M/S Coolade Had Received Only 42,000 Bottles Out Of The Total Of 2

depreciation only to 42,000 bottles and consequently dis-allowed the depreciation of Rs. 18,04,572/-. It may be mentioned

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

depreciation to the extent specified in section 350. ...5/- - 5 - Ascertainment of depreciation. 350. The amount of depreciation

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

depreciation by the assessee on BSE membership card amounting to Rs. 23,65,000/-. The claim of depreciation

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

Depreciation. 32.(1) In respect of depreciation of buildings, machinery, plant or furniture owned by the assessee and used

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HYD. vs. M/S. P.J. CHEMICALS LTD

In the result, we affirm the judgments of the High Courts which have

depreciation etc. 2. The second batch consists of matters in which the High Court has taken a contrary view

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

depreciation. The depreciation claimed for the year was Rs.1,47,97,995.01 computed as under:- Depreciation for Assessment

CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX vs. M/S SAFARI RETREATS PRIVATE LIMITED

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA

depreciation on ‘plant and machinery’ if the assessees choose to avail of ITC. Thus, ITC is allowable only when

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III, BANGALORE vs. M/S WIPRO LIMITED

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

depreciation and did not opt for the option of not providing details regarding depreciation in its P&L account

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

depreciated value of the underlying asset, shall be provided for. 26 Explanation For the purpose of this paragraph, (1) the depreciated