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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

justice. The above parameters within which the High Court has to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC should always be borne in mind. We are sorry to state that the above aspects are seldom borne in mind in many cases and second appeals are entertained and/or disposed of, without conforming to the above discipline.” This statement

NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

depreciation allowance  or  any other allowance under this Act has been computed. (ca) where a return of income has not been furnished by the assessee or a return of income has been furnished by him and on the basis of information or document received   from   the   prescribed   income­tax   authority, under sub­section (2) of section 133C, it is noticed

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

Appeals are disposed of with the aforementioned directions

depreciation was not causing any prejudice to the interest of Revenue at least in the year under consideration and the apprehension of the learned CIT about such prejudice which may be caused to the Revenue in the subsequent years was based on 29 assumptions and surmises depending on ultimate eventualities like the one happened in the present case when

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

depreciation for arriving at the fair value for all the disputed items, which he has considered as separate items, but there is no reason forthcoming to show the basis adopted by him for giving such deductions on the original value of comparable goods. Moreover, I find that since the present goods are second hand goods, there is no contemporaneous import

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI vs. M/S. BUREAU VERITAS

depreciation method is adopted, the computation as done by the Commissioner was not correct one. Accordingly, the appeals were allowed and the duty and penalty imposed, interest charged were set aside. In support of the appeal Mr. A.K. Ganguli, learned senior counsel submitted that the approach of the Tribunal is clearly erroneous. It proceeded on the basis

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

The appeal is partly allowed

Nature and object of. Roads and drains-Land within factory premises-Necessary adjuncts to factory buildings-Treated as ‘building’ for purposes of depreciation. Statutory Interpretation : Taxing statutes-Provision for deduction, exemption or relief-to be construed reasonable and in favour of assessee. Administrative Law : Subordinate legislation-Rules validly made have same force as sections of Act. Practice and Procedure Interpretation

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

The appeals are allowed

Justice of India for appropriate direction in this regard to place it before an appropriate Bench." That is how the matters were placed before us for final hearing. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. At the time of hearing of appeals, the learned counsel for the appellant stated that three questions arise for consideration of this Court

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

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

depreciation in any year. With an expansion of such a nature not only there would be increase in production but generation of more employment as well, which would benefit the local populace. It is for this reason, carrying out substantial expansion by itself is treated as ‘initial assessment year’. It would mean that even when an old unit completes substantial

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX-I,NEW DELHI vs. VATIKA TOWNSHIP P.LTD

Appeals of the assessees are allowed deleting the surcharge levied by the

Justice for constitution of a larger Bench.” 9. A three Member Bench was constituted before which the matter came up for hearing on 08.04.2010. On that date, the said Bench passed the following order : “Vide order dated 06.01.2009 the lead matter was referred to be listed before a larger Bench and consequently the matter, along with connected matters, were listed

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

depreciation to be allowed with reference to such increased/decreased cost. This position is also made clear by Circular No. 5-P dated 9.10.1967 issued by CBDT. One more point needs to be mentioned. Section 43A (unamended) corresponds to para 10 of AS-11 similarly providing for adjustment in the carrying cost of fixed assets acquired in foreign currency

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

nature of trade, commerce or business or rendering service in relation thereto is barred. Reliance was placed upon judgments in Dir. Of Supp. & Disp. v. Board of Revenue76 which follows H. Abdul Bakhi & Bros (supra), Barendra Prasad Ray v. ITO77 and State of Gujarat v. Raipur Manufacturing Co. Ltd.78 to argue that in “business” there must be some real

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

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

nature referred to in Section 53(A)of the Transfer of Property Act. The Court distinguished Jodha Mal (supra). This Court further referred to in great detail the judgment of the Patna High Court in Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar v. M/s. Sahay Properties and Investment Co.(P) Ltd.15. Since this Court has approved the reasoning adopted

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

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 under the head “it is more beneficial to it”. He submitted that in the modern era, theatre building and hotel building are integral part of operation for carrying out such business and, therefore, such building should be considered as a “plant”. Ultimately, in paragraph 67, this Court held thus: “67. In the result, it is held that the building

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

Appeals are allowed

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

nature and would not involve imposition of any new tax burden.” 15) Ms. Makhija also relied upon the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, T.N.-V, Madras v. Kotagiri Industrial Cooperative Tea Factory Ltd., Kotagiri6 wherein provisions of Section 80P of the Act are interpreted in the following manner: "1. … The Tribunal referred the following question

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 was not an initially recognised concept. The Millard Tucker Committee in United Kingdom said : "For more than a generation after the imposition of the present income tax, no relief whatever was given to the using up, in the course of carrying on a business, of any kind of fixed assets." 12. In Corporation of Birmingham V. Barnes

WIPRO FINANCE LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed

nature of the advantage in a commercial sense and it is only where the advantage is in the capital field that the expenditure would be disallowable on an application of this test. If the advantage consists merely in   facilitating   the   assessee's   trading   operations   or enabling the management and conduct of the assessee's business   to   be   carried   on   more

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