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 Section 32(1) of the Act? 14.3. In this connection, Mr. Dwarakanath submits that Section 32(1) allowing

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes by the legislative history of these provisions, what is discernible is that Parliament’s endeavour in introducing Section 43B [which opens with its non-obstante clause] was to primarily ensure that deductions otherwise permissible and hitherto claimed on mercantile basis, were expressly

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 chart. No tax was payable on the said return by the assessee. No notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was received by the assessee. 3. An intimation under Section 143(1

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

depreciation [Sections 32 and 43(1)], and also as regards capital assets for scientific research [Section 35(1)(iv)] and also

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

depreciation in the value of the assets and, consequently, it is deductible under Section 37(1) of the IT Act. In this

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 and ITC. 29. Now we come to sub-Section (4) of Section 16. Before the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2022, the sub-section read thus: “16. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. (4) A registered person shall not be entitled to take input tax credit in respect of any invoice or debit note for supply of goods or services or both after

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS PVT.LTD

The appeal is allowed without

depreciation allowance or any other allow- ance under this Act has been computed. 148. Issue of notice where income has escaped assessment.\027(1) Before making the assessment, reassessment or recomputation under section

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

Section 32(1)(ii), which reads as follows: “Depreciation. 32.(1) In respect of depreciation of buildings, machinery, plant or furniture

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

Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with effect from 1.4.1976? FACTS (C.A. NO. 7115 OF 2005) For the assessment year 1996-97, the assessee-appellant returned an income of Rs. 1,32,44,507.29 subject to depreciation

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

1 of 1956) : Provided that while preparing profit and loss account, the depreciation shall be calculated on the same method and rates which have been adopted for calculating the depreciation for the purpose of preparing the profit and loss account laid before the company at its annual general meeting in accordance with the provisions of section

M/S. G.K. CHOKSI & CO. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, GUJARAT

1)(iv) of the Act. 8. The relevant provisions of Section 32 of the Act, as they existed at the relevant time, are reproduced below: "Section 32 - Depreciation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. CORE HEALTH CARE LTD

1) has relevancy in relation to Section 32(depreciation allowance), Section 32A(investment allowance), Section 33(development rebate allowance), and Section

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 provided in Section 32 (1) under sub- rule (1) of Rule 5 read with Appendix-I instead of the depreciation

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

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

1) (ii-a) of the IT Act. That provision gave the assessee the option to claim additional depreciation, over and above the usual or ordinary depreciation mandatorily allowed under Section

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

Appeals are disposed of with the aforementioned directions

1) on non-fulfillment of pre-requisite conditions for deduction under Section 80-IA/80-IB – it was held that the activities of the assessee do not amount to manufacturing; (2) little consumption of electricity and thus manufacturing is without the aid of 25 power; (3) non-employment of requisite workers in manufacturing process; (4) non-fulfillment of the condition

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE

The appeal is allowed

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

Section 245C (1) of the Act, by way of an application in Form No. 34B bearing No. 563/KNK-III/15/2000- IT. The appellant sought for determination of its taxable income for the assessment years 1994-1995 to 1999-2000, after considering the issues pertaining to the income assessable in respect of its leasing transaction; eligibility to avail depreciation

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

1. Leave granted. 2. In this batch of cases the question which arises for determination is: whether BSE Membership Card can be considered an intangible asset for the purpose of depreciation under Section

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. A.R. ENTERPRISES

depreciation under sub- section (2) of section 32; (b) of a firm, or its partners, the method of computation of undisclosed income and its allocation to the partners shall be in accordance with the method adopted for determining the as- 21 Page 22 JUDGMENT sessed income or returned income for each of the previous years falling within the block period