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

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

26 assets claimed to be leased. b) Treatment of bonus payments to employees. c) Treatment of share issue expenses. d) Treatment of depreciation on permanent assets and securities. iii. The Commission’s order dated 11.12.2000, makes multiple references to the Report of the Commissioner, as required under Section 245D (1). Therefore, we find no substance in the submission

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

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

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

10 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 and Sections 22 to 24 of the Indian income Tax Act, 1961, where ‘owner’ is spoken in respect of the house properties, the legal owner is meant and not the equitable or beneficial owner. Salmond On Jurisprudence, 12th edn., discusses the different ingredients of ‘ownership’ from pages 246 to 264. ‘Ownership

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

VODAFONE IDEA LTD(EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 26 (2)

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

depreciation as claimed and by taxing the interest income of Rs.1,07,85,590 as income from other sources and thus raised the demand of Rs. 1,30,83,741 under various heads and sections of taxes, surcharge and additional tax under Sections 143(1A), 234A and 234B. 4. Mr. Shah, learned counsel appearing for the assessee, has contended that

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

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

Sections mentioned above. Feeling aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) who passed an order on 15th October, 1998. The appeal was allowed in part inasmuch as it was held that the Assessee was entitled to a deduction towards legal expenses. However, the claim of the Assessee regarding deduction or depreciation on the Intellectual

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. 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

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

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

26 months after the return was filed as provided under Section 153(1) of the IT Act. The Revenue rejected the form on the ground that it had not been filed along with the return of income and declined to grant additional depreciation as claimed by the assessee. It is submitted that this Court held that the requirement that Form

MALAYALA MANORAMA CO LTD. vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM

The appeals are allowed and the

10 of 12 The question raised by the revenue was: \023Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in upholding the order of the CIT (Appeals) directing the assessing officer to allow the claim of depreciation as per the Income Tax Rules for the purposes of computing the book profit under section 115J

M/S. MANGALAM PUBLICATIONS, KOTTAYAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM

Bench: This Court & On Leave Being Granted, Civil Appeals Have Been Registered. 3.

26. This takes us to Section 143 which is the provision for assessment. As per sub-section (1), where a return is made under Section 139 or in response to a notice under Section 142(1), the assessing officer may carry out adjustments in accordance with law and thereafter, issue intimation to the assessee specifying the sums payable. Such intimation

SUNDARESH BHATT vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

depreciation. From the viewpoint of creditors, a good realisation can generally be obtained if the firm is sold as a going concern. Hence, when delays induce liquidation, there is value destruction. Further, even in liquidation, the realisation is lower when there are delays. Hence, delays cause value destruction. Thus, achieving a high recovery rate is primarily about identifying and combating

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

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

26. The Revenue further contended that in terms of provisions of Section 36(1)(va) with respect to any sum received by the assessee from any of its employees to which provision of Section 2 (24 (x) applied, if credited by the assessee to the employees’ account in the relevant fund or funds on or before the due date