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

20,853.00. Initially the return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act but subsequently the case was selected for scrutiny during which proceedings, assessee filed a revised 13 return increasing its loss. It also submitted a note on the admissibility of depreciation on intellectual property rights and on non-compete fee on 23.02.2000. Assessee stated that

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

10 AIR 1967 SC 1437 = (1967) 3 SCR 181 11 (2008) 9 SCC 622 13 specifically made applicable w.e.f. April 1, 2002 and was, therefore, prospective in nature. In this behalf, he referred to three High Court judgments rendered by Kerala High Court, Madras High Court and Punjab & Haryana High Court which had taken the view as projected

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

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

20. The learned counsel submitted that there is no conflict between Section 17(5)(d) and Section 16(3). He submitted that Section 16(3) applies to “plant and machinery” and not to “plant or machinery”. He submitted that even assuming that Section 16(3) applies to plant or machinery, the effect of the provision is that if the registered

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

20. We have already analyzed Section 80-IA of the Act. There is no dispute that respondent-assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act for the relevant assessment year. The only issue is with regard to the quantum of profits and gains of the eligible business of the assessee and the resultant deduction under Section

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE

The appeal is allowed

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

20 reveal that the same cannot be read in isolation as Section 245C is embedded in 245H (1). Therefore, the two provisions would have to be read harmoniously and when so read, it would emerge that in order to qualify for immunity under Section 245H, the assessee must not only co-operate with the Settlement Commission, but must also disclose

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

Appeals are allowed

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

depreciation’ and ‘investment allowance’. Language of sub-section (1) of Section 80HH will have to be seen, in order to comprehend the aforesaid issue. It reads: “80HH. Deduction in respect of profits and gains from newly established industrial undertakings or hotel business in backward areas. (1) Where the gross total income of an assessee includes any profits and gains derived

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

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

depreciation allowance was originally computed, continued in the previous year relevant to the assessment year in question. It may be apposite to note that the said proviso has since been omitted by the Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 1st April, 2002. Page 9 of 13 11. It is evident that to avail the benefit of the aforesaid provisions, the appellant

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

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

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

10 Page 11 JUDGMENT Moreover, Section 158BD permits the application of the provisions of this chapter only on the satisfaction of the assessing officer that the seized documents show undisclosed income of a person other than the person with respect to whom search was conducted or a requisition was made. It is trite law that such satisfaction must be recorded

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

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

10 SCC 77. This Court also held that since the 14 Page 15 JUDGMENT department has proceeded on the explicit basis that despite the fact that the plant had been temporarily let out by the assessee to a sister concern, the plant and machinery was nevertheless being used by the assessee for its business purpose by treating the income derived

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

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

10. MGBW (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Assessee’) filed its return for the period 18th November, 1994 to 31st March, 1995 and subsequently filed a revised return. Broadly, the Assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 12,24,700/- as a revenue expenditure permissible under Section 37 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ‘Act’) towards legal

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. UNITED PROVINCES ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO

In the result, appeal is allowed

depreciable assets as has been done by the I.T.O. He submitted that balancing charge has to be calculated with respect of each individual asset. In support of his contention, he referred to the decision of this Court in C.I.T., Gujarat vs. Artex Manufacturing Co., http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10

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

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

The appeal is allowed without

depreciation allowance has been computed. Explanation 2.\027Production before the Assessing Officer of account books or other evidence from which material evidence could with due diligence have been discovered by the Assessing Officer will not necessarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of this section.\024 16. Section 147 authorises and permits the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess income

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

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

depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii-a) of the IT Act. 4.7 It is submitted that exactly the same principle applies to the interpretation of Section 10B (8) of the IT Act. Section 10B (8) enables an assessee to exclude the applicability of the deduction under Section 10B by filing a declaration to that effect before the last date