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

11,64,492.00 under Section 115JA of the Act and a loss of Rs. 20,52,26,552.00. Though initially the return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act, subsequently, assessment proceedings were initiated under Section 143 thereof. 10.3. During the assessment year 1999-2000, assessee had acquired the glass division from Nicholas Piramal India Limited for which

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

11-4-1955. Income under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession” is chargeable to income tax under Section 28 and that income under Section 29 is to be computed in accordance with the provisions contained in Sections 30 to 43-A. The argument that since Section 32 provides for depreciation

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

11 State Electricity Board for supply of electricity to the industrial consumers including the assessee. 11.1. Assessee had claimed deduction under Section 80 IA in respect of its two undertakings engaged in generation of power at Raigarh (Chhattisgarh). Power produced in the captive power plants was primarily for use by the respondent assessee in its steel plants. Availability of electricity

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

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

Section 2(11) of the 1961 Act. As stated, this judgment is confined to depreciable assets costing less than Rs. 5,000/- which

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 of diesel oil engines fitted to the motor vehicles in replacement of the existing engines. It was held that the expression ‘installed’ did not necessarily means fix in position but was also used in the sense of inducted

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

11,29,957/-, respectively, were claimed as deductions and appellant also claimed set-off against unabsorbed depreciation on furniture and fixtures brought forward from earlier years. FINDINGS OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT (APPEAL): 3. The Assessing Officer4 disallowed deduction of business expenditure as well as carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation on the ground that the appellant was not carrying

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

11. At the outset we wish to clarify that our present judgment is confined to the Rules and Bye-laws of BSE, as they stood during the relevant assessment years. 12. Section 32 of the 1961 Act provides for a deduction of allowance being made in respect of depreciation

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

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

The appeal is partly allowed

depreciation setting at rest the variable rates claimed by the assessee. Rules validly made have the same force as the sections in the Act. [1029 C] 11

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

Depreciation is not there in Section 36(1)(iii). That is why the legislature has used the words "unless the context otherwise requires". Hence, Explanation 8 has no relevancy to Section 36(1)(iii). It has relevancy to the aforementioned enumerated sections. Therefore, in our view Explanation 8 has no application to the facts of the present case. http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

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

The appeals are allowed and the

11 of 12 to in clauses (a) to (ha) of the Act. It should be noted that the words \023prepared under sub-section (1A)\024 were introduced by the Finance Act, 1989, with effect from 01.4.1989. Sub-section (1A) to section 115J reads as follows: \023Every assessee, being a company, shall, for the purposes of this section, prepare its profit

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

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

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 KARNATAKA SMALL S.INDT.DEV.COR.LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,BANGALORE

section 43(6) of the 1961 Act which defines ’written down value’ in so far as it is relevant: (a) in the case of assets acquired in the previous year, the actual cost to the assessee; (b) in the case of assets acquired before the previous year, the actual cost to the assessee less all depreciation actually allowed

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN vs. M/S ENRON OIL & GAS INDIA LTD

Bench: Cit(A), Who After Analyzing The Psc Held That Each Co-Venturer In This Case Had Made Contribution At A Certain Rate Whereas The Expenditure Incurred Out Of The Said Contribution Stood Converted On The Basis Of The Previous 2

depreciation is admissible under section 32" had been omitted; and (c) to the depletion of mineral oil in the mining area in respect of the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which commercial production is begun and for such succeeding year or years as may be specified in the agreement; and such allowances shall be computed and made

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

M/S. G.K. CHOKSI & CO. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, GUJARAT

depreciation under Section 32(1)(iv) though the word "profession" does not find mention in sub-clause (iv). That the words "business" and "profession" are defined separately under the Act; "business" has been defined under Section 2(13) and "profession" under Section 2(36) and both the definitions are inclusive. That, Section 2 specifically reads "in this Act, unless

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

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

depreciation. In the case of G.M. Knitting (supra), the assessee did not file Form 3-AA along with the return of income, but chose to file the Form much later, but before the passing of the 11 assessment order, which may be passed as long as 26 months after the return was filed as provided under Section