KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE

The appeal is allowed

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

depreciation in respect of leased assets; the quantum 4 of allowable deduction under Section 80M and exemption under Section 10(15) and 10(23G); and depreciation

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

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

depreciation in computing the income from business. 3.5 It is submitted that in the present case while filing the original return of income, the assessee specifically declared a loss of Rs. 15,47,76,990/- and claimed exemption

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

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PARASRAMPURIA SYNTHETICS LTD

depreciable asset." (Emphasis supplied) While there is some factual divergence as noticed above but the factum of the drawings etc. not forming part of a book within the exemption

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

exemptions. Assessing officer passed assessment order dated 31.03.2004 under Section 143(3) of the Act raising a demand of Rs. 55,25,86,888.00 besides initiating penalty proceedings. 8.3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of assessment, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings, assessee raised additional grounds of appeal, one of which related to depreciation

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,SIMLA vs. M/S GREEN WORLD CORPORATION

Appeals are disposed of with the aforementioned directions

depreciation prejudices the revenues case for the subsequent years also.” It was concluded: “15.6 Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the only inescapable conclusion in this case is that the assessee has/had no genuine manufacturing unit at Parwanoo. The Parwanoo base is being only used as a façade to convert/route its otherwise undisclosed

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS (GENERAL), N. DELHI vs. GUJARAT PERSTORP ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeals are allowed

exemption as ’Printed books’. It was conceded by the Department before us is that no doubt in Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd., the Larger Bench of CEGAT decided the question of law in favour of assessee and against the Department, but the Department had taken the mater further and this Court reversed the decision of the Larger Bench

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

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 04-05 (A.Y.05-06). In view of the above, I am constrained to hold that the assessee company is not eligible for claim of 80IB(3) deduction amounting to Rs.75,81,910/- and hence same

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SHIMLA vs. M/S AARHAM SOFTRONICS

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

exemption for the next five years from profits and gains after availing the same for first five years on the ground that they have now carried out substantial expansion. The High Court has answered the question in affirmative and for this reason, it is the department which has come up to this Court challenging the said decision by filing these

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

exemption under Section 11 from AY 1979-80 to 1990-91. During AY 1991-92, the Assessing Officer (“AO”) denied the exemption on the ground that it was carrying on business. That order was eventually set aside by the ITAT which, held that it was entitled to exemption under Section 11 of the Act. Subsequently, an amendment was brought

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

exempted services, or if the supply is outside the ambit of levying GST. However, where the taxing chain continues, ITC is not restricted. It is submitted that the Court shall not interpret a statutory provision in such a manner that it would create an additional fiscal burden on a person. c. Thirdly, it is submitted that services of renting/leasing/letting

M/S. VIKRAM CEMENT vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE

exempt from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon or chargeable to nil rate of duty: Provided that such intermediate products are specified as final products in column (3) of the Table below sub-rule (1) of rule 57Q. (3) The credit of the specified duty paid on the capital goods shall be allowed to a manufacturer

UDAIPUR SAHKARI UPBOKTA THOK BHANDER LD. vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX

exemption under clause (e) must be relatable to the letting out or the use of its godowns for any of the three purposes mentioned in clause (e). Any income derived by the society unconnected with such letting or use of the godowns would not fall under clause (e). In the case of M/s. 1 Vishnu Agencies

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS(PREV.), GUJARAT vs. M/S. RELIANCE PETROLEUM LTD

exempt from the duties specified thereunder.” 8 On the question of valuation, it was held : “In this regard, I find that the addition of 1% of the value of the imported goods towards the transportation charges for bringing the goods from anchorage to jetty has no sanctity of law. The appellants have included 1% landing charges in the assessable value

THE TATA IRON AND STEEL CO.LTD., BIHAR vs. THE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE,PATNA

The appeals are disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs

exemption contained in this notification shall be allowable subject to the observance of the procedure set out in Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules, 1944". The said Notification has been issued in exercise of powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Rules. The Notification consists of two parts. The first part relates to excisable goods

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

depreciation as in sub-Paragraph (vii) above, the Appellant was assessed at a loss of Rs. 11,02,255.00 (Rs. 69,15,757.00) \026 Rs. 80,18,012.00 = - Rs. 11,02,255.00) In this manner, the carry-forward loss of Rs. 15,53,487.72 originally claimed by the appellant was reduced to Rs. 11,02,225.00. By order dated

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE vs. DAI ICHI KARKARIA LTD

The appeals are dismissed

exempt from the whole of the excise duty leviable thereon or is chargeable to a nil rate of duty. Rule 57D says that the credit of duty allowed in respect of any inputs shall not be denied or varied on the ground that part of the inputs is contained in any waste, refuse, or by-product arising from the manufacture

CHECKMATE SERVICES P LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

depreciation). Each of these deductions, has its contours, depending upon the expressions used, and the conditions that are to be met. It is therefore necessary to bear in mind that specific enumeration of deductions, dependent upon fulfilment of particular conditions, would qualify as allowable deductions: failure by the assessee to comply with those conditions, would render the claim vulnerable