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

15,583/-. Though, the assessee had disclaimed deduction in respect of depreciation, the AO allowed deduction on this account as well in respect of the same in the sum of Rs.2,13,89,379/- while computing the profit and gains of business. After reducing the gross total income by the brought forward loss of Rs.98,47,170/-, he determined

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

15. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have received the due consideration of the Court. Analysis 16. Let us advert to Section 37 of the Act at the outset. It is a residuary provision. Sub-section (1) of Section 37 reads as follows: (1) Any expenditure not being expenditure of the nature described in Sections

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

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

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

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

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

15. Since the core issue is relatable to Section 80-IA of the Act, it would be apposite to advert to and analyse the aforesaid provision. Section 80-IA deals with deductions in respect of profits and gains from industrial undertakings or enterprises engaged in infrastructure development etc. Let us first take up sub-section (1), which reads as under

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

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 inserted by the Finance Act, 2003 w.e.f. Civil Appeal No. 7208 OF 2018 & Ors. Page

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

Section 10(1) of the 1961 Act read with Rule 8, 40 per cent of the business income derived from the sale of tea grown and manufactured in India by the assessee was liable to tax. In the above judgment of the Supreme Court, the Court was concerned with the world income, in this case we are concerned with

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

15:19:21 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified Page 2 of 13 forward of unabsorbed 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

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

The appeal is partly allowed

10 M/s. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. ...Respondent I.T.O. allowed depreciation on roads and drains in the original assessment for the assessment year 1973-74 C.I.T. set aside order of the I.T.O. under Section 263. Reassessment by the I.T.O. disallowing the assessee’s claim for depreciation on roads and drains to the extent of Rs. 15

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

depreciation and allowances are dealt with in Section 32. Therefore, Parliament has used the expression “any expenditure” in Section 37 to cover both. Therefore, the expression “expenditure” as used in Section 37 may, in 11 the circumstances of a particular case, cover an amount which is really a “loss” even though the said amount has not gone out from

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

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

10 Page 11 JUDGMENT 15. We would like to dispose of the second contention before considering the first. Revenue argued that since the lessees were actually using the vehicles, they were the ones entitled to claim depreciation, and not the assessee. We are not persuaded to agree with the argument. The Section

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

depreciation was not admissible under Section 32(1)(ii). 14. To decide the above controversy, we need to examine the Rules of BSE. 15. Rule 5, quoted above, states that membership shall constitute a personal permission from the Exchange to exercise the rights and privileges attached thereto. Rule 6 inter alia states that membership shall not be alienable. Rule

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 34, be allowed –’ 13 Page 14 JUDGMENT (that is on trademarks, copyrights and know-how) in terms of Section

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

The appeal is allowed without

10 (2) The Assessing Officer shall, before issuing any notice under this section, record his reasons for doing so.\024 15. Section 147 prior to its substitution by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, stood as follows: \023147. Income escaping assessment.\027If\027 (a) the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that, by reason of the omission or failure

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