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

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

depreciation; or (iv) the amount of profits derived by an industrial undertaking from the business of generation or generation and distribution of power; or (v) the amount of profits derived by an industrial undertaking located in an industrially backward State or district as referred to in sub-section (4) and sub- section (5) of section 80-IB, for the assessment

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

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

3 to Section 32 defines the term ‘assets’ and clause(b) of the Explanation defining ‘intangible assets’ is in similar terms as is referred to in Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. He then refers to the definition of ‘block of assets’ as provided in Section 2(11) of the Act, clearly bifurcating assets into tangible assets and intangible

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,SIMLA vs. M/S GREEN WORLD CORPORATION

Appeals are disposed of with the aforementioned directions

11. Since none of the submissions made by the learned counsel has any merit, both the review petitions (petition Nos. 15 and 16 of 2006) filed by the assessee, i.e. M/s The Green World Corporation, are dismissed.” 17. Mr. Harish N. Salve and Mr. Sunil Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Assessee inter alia would submit

M/S.SIV INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. COMMNR.OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS

depreciated value but at rates prevalent on the dates of import; (b) Customs duty on unused raw materials and components on the value on the dates of import and at rates in force on the dates of clearance. Unless there is a http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9 specific prohibition EOU is permitted sale

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

3) to carry forward only the unabsorbed depreciation allowance under section 32, investment allowance under section 32-A, losses under sections 72, 72A, 73, 74 and permissible deductions under section 80J to the following assessment year to be set off against the profits and gains of that assessment year. All that section 115-J(2) does is to preserve this

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

11. It is pointed out that Section 17(5)(c) carves out an exception only for works contracts, assuming that this is the only category of service where there is no breakage in the chain of taxable supplies. It is submitted that while Section 17(5)(c) allows ITC on works contracts for contractors, ITC has been blocked for other

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 at the rate of 7.50% on the turnover came to Rs.57,22,106.00. In respect of the daily newspaper, the assessing officer worked out the loss at Rs.22,95,872.00 as against the loss of Rs.41,23,500.00 claimed by the assessee. Taking an overall view of the matter, the assessing officer estimated the business income of the assessee

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 it has to be allowed in computing

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SHIMLA vs. M/S AARHAM SOFTRONICS

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

11 Section 80-IC and there is no dispute about the same. From the year such substantial explanations were carried out by the assessees, the assessees demanded deduction @ 100%, instead of 25%/30% for the remaining period of 10 years which is the maximum period for which deduction is admissible. 10.Sub-section (3), as noted above, mentions the period

UDAIPUR SAHKARI UPBOKTA THOK BHANDER LD. vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX

11. At the outset it may be noted that Sections 81(iv), followed by Section 14(3)(iv) in the 1922 Act, as amended, was a predecessor to Section 80P(2)(e) of the 1961 Act, and it came for consideration before the Gujarat High Court in the case of Surat Vankar Sahakari Sangh Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL vs. DY.COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX & ANR.ETC.ETC

Appeals are allowed accordingly

3 of 13 the matters at the instance of the learned counsel for the Revenue on 11 past occasions and, therefore, there was no violation of principles of natural justice when further adjournment was refused and the matter was heard by the Special Bench. Shri Ahuja, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-Deputy Commissioner of Income

M/S. VIKRAM CEMENT vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE

section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), equivalent to the duty of excise paid on such capital goods. (5) The credit of the specified duty on capital goods (other than those capital goods in respect of which credit of duty was allowable under any other rule or notification prior to the Ist day of March

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

MANSAROVAR COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI

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

3) would indicate that the seat of such power may be divided between two distinct and separate places. The expression “control and management” means de facto control and management and not merely the right or power to control and manage. In order to hold that a non- Indian company is resident in India during any previous year, it must

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

3) specifically deals with balancing charge in respect of assets relating to scientific research whereas Section 41(4) deals with recovery of bad debts earlier allowed. Therefore, each of the sub-sections deal with different and distinct topics and one cannot read recoupment under one sub-section into another. 9. The entire controversy, therefore, stands resolved if one understands