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

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

29 13.1. Mr. Datar then refers to Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and submits that the said provision clearly provides for depreciation on intangible assets owned and used for the purpose of business and profession. Intangibles include know-how, patents, copyrights, trade marks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature. Explanation

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

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

29: “The income referred to in section 28 shall be computed in accordance with the provisions contained in sections 30 to 43D.” General: Section 37 : “(1) Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly

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

10 assessment years. It is not on quantum. We have also to keep in mind the purpose for which Section 80-IC was enacted. The purpose was to establish the business of the nature specified in the said provision in the specified States. This provision was, thus, aimed at encouraging the undertakings or enterprises to establish and set up such

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. UNITED PROVINCES ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO

In the result, appeal is allowed

29,35,557/- under Section 41(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the assessment year 1965-66 was not justified? The High Court answered the said question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by holding that Section 41(2) of the Act does not and cannot come into play till the price is finally ascertained

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-year contract

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

Appeals are allowed

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

29 provides that income referred to in Section 28 shall be computed in accordance with the provisions contained in Sections 30 to 43D. These sections provide for deductions of various kinds. Among them, Section 32 relates to depreciation, Section 32AB gives deductions in respect of certain investment allowance. After providing for admissible deductions to an assessee, income under this head

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE

The appeal is allowed

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

29 has complied with the preconditions specified therein. It is trite that any judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative authority must while exercising discretion, direct itself properly in law and consider all the facts and material that it is bound to consider while excluding from consideration irrelevant aspects of the matter. While exercising power under Section 245H, read with Section 245C

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

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

depreciation on plant) as has been done by the Tribunal, the Assessee would be quite satisfied. Unfortunately, the alternative aspect of the Assessee’s case was not looked into by the High Court. 29. Therefore, now the question to be answered is whether the Assessee is entitled to any benefit under Section 32 of the Act read with Section

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

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

29 of the said packages on the basis of the letter by the Under Secretary of the Chogyal of Sikkim addressed to the Assistant Collector of Customs dated May 30, 1973. The Chogyal was the head of an independent State at the relevant time and it was necessary, if the claim for ownership of the Chogyal is to be disputed

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

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.

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in Sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year). 32 28.4. Thus, Section 147 as it stood at the relevant point of time provides that if the assessing officer has reason to believe that any income

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

10 only on Section 36(1)(va) is contrary to what Parliament intend. It was argued by learned counsel that Alom Extrusions correctly found that the law hindered and caused practical difficulties to assesses; as a result, it was omitted. To give full effect to the omission was that amendment declared to be retrospective in effect by this court. Further