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

Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, it would be a capital asset entitled to depreciation. Civil Appeal No. of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 719/2020) 10

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 under Section 32 cannot be allowed. Section 29 is thus to be read with reference to other provisions of the Act. It is not in itself a complete code.” 7) He also referred to sub-sections (9) and (10

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

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

depreciation under sub-section (2) of section 32 shall not be set off against the undisclosed income determined in the block assessment under this Chapter, but may be carried forward for being set off in the regular assessments. Civil Appeal No.________ of 2014 & connected matters Page 17 of 57 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 540 of 2009) Page

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

depreciation is admissible under the provisions of Section 10(2)(vi) and Section 10(2) (via) of the Act in respect

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

10. It is submitted that even though sub-Section (5) of Section 17 starts with the non-obstante clause, it cannot be said that the legislature intended to override Section 16(1) in its entirety. It is submitted that the non-obstante clause in Section 17(5) cannot cut down the construction or restrict the scope of operation of 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

10. Aggrieved by the aforesaid finding rendered by the Tribunal, revenue preferred appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana under Section 260 A of the Act which was registered as Income Tax Appeal No.53 of 2008. The High Court in its order dated 02.09.2008 disposed of the appeal by following its order dated 02.09.2008 passed in the connected

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

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

depreciation in any year), as on the first day of the previous year in which the substantial expansion is undertaken. 8. This section makes special provisions in respect of certain undertakings or enterprises in certain special category States. Section 80-IC was 10

PRIDE FORAMER S.A. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

depreciation under Section 32(2) of the Act for the Assessment Years 1996-1997, 1997-1998 and 1999-2000. FACTS: 2. Relevant facts for adjudication of the appeals are set out hereinunder: a. Appellant is a non-resident company incorporated in France and is engaged in oil drilling activities. In 1983, the appellant was awarded a 10

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

depreciation taken into account for arriving at the world income (composite income). 11. In our view the above judgment of the Supreme Court squarely applies to the present case. Assessee is engaged in the business of growing and manufacturing of tea. As per the provisions of Section 10

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

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

The appeal is partly allowed

10 PETITIONER: C.I.T., BOMBAY Vs. RESPONDENT: GWALIOR RAYON SILK MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. DATE OF JUDGMENT29/04/1992 BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. KASLIWAL, N.M. (J) CITATION: 1992 AIR 1782 1992 SCR (2)1017 1992 SCC (3) 326 JT 1992 (3) 158 1992 SCALE (1)1000 ACT: Income Tax Act 1961 : Section 32. Income Tax (Fourth Amendment) Rules 1983. Depreciation

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

depreciation to be allowed with reference to such increased/decreased cost. According to the learned counsel, the provisions of Section 43A (unamended) are pari materia with para 10

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

10,77,276/-, the same as was in the original return of income. The main reason for reopening of assessment under Section 147 was the claim of depreciation

M/S MANGALORE GANESH BEEDI WORKS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MYSORE

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

10 ‘In respect of depreciation of buildings, machinery, plant or furniture owned, wholly or partly, by the assessee and used for the purposes of the business or profession, the following deductions shall, subject to the provisions of section

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

depreciable assets costing less than Rs. 5,000/- which did not enter the block of assets during the assessment years in question (when Section 41(2) stood deleted). Effect of introducing Finance (No. 2) Act, 1995 w.e.f. 1.4.1996: 10

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. UNITED PROVINCES ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO

In the result, appeal is allowed

section 10(2)(vii), second proviso, notwithstanding. The reason for introducing this fiction appears to be this. Where in the previous years, by the depreciation

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

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

depreciation under Section 32. 57. This Court is called upon to decide the ambit of the word ‘owner’ in section 69A in the facts before us. This Court agrees with the High Court that the concept of ‘owner’ cannot be divorced from the context in which the expression is employed. In the case of Jodha Mal (supra), the property undoubtedly

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

10. As stated above, the Department contended before us that the judgments of this Court, prior to insertion of Explanation 8 in Section 43(1) of the 1961 Act, has no application to the present case. According to the Department, Section 36(1)(iii) of the 1961 Act being general in nature has to give way to special provisions contained