ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 12AA(1) of the IT Act, on 18.05.1979 and is engaged in the activity of promotion of the export of all kind of ready-made garments, knitwear, and garments made of leather, jute and hemp. It does not per se engage in any activity for profit, and its mandate is to ensure that Indian apparel manufacturers, are given forums

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

Section 32. Even in the absence of Rule 5-AA return of income in the form prescribed itself requires particulars to be furnished if the assessee claims depreciation. These particulars are required to be furnished in 11

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

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

5) is required only if the assessee claims the deduction under Section 10B. This certificate only certifies the profit/loss of Section 10B unit and the amount of deduction under Section 10B (1), if any. The certificate, if already submitted, becomes irrelevant if the claim is withdrawn under Section 10B. In any event, the contents of this certificate regarding profit/loss

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I vs. M/S RELIANCE ENERGY LTD (FORMERLY BSES LTD.) THROUGH ITS M.D

The Appeal is dismissed qua the issue of the extent of deduction under

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO

depreciation. 2 | P a g e The Assessing Officer considered the revised claim of the Assessee under Section 80-IA and determined the amount eligible for deduction under Section 80-IA at Rs. 492,78,60,973/- against the Assessee’s claim of Rs. 546,26,01,224/-. However, the Assessing Officer stated in the assessment order that the actual

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

5 (2010) 327 ITR 323 28 payment of non-compete fee as such payment results in acquisition of an intangible asset within the meaning of Explanation 3 to Section 32(1) of the Act. 12.11. Learned senior counsel therefore submits that firstly the expenses incurred by the assessee by way of non-compete fee is a revenue expenditure and therefore

M/S. SYNCO INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. ASSESSING OFFICER,INCOME TAX MUMBAI &ANR

depreciation of earlier years. In Orient Paper Mills Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income Tax (1986) 158 I.T.R. 695 the Calcutta High Court has taken the view that deductions under Section 80-I cannot exceed gross total income and if gross total income found is ’Nil’ or a net loss the assessee is not entitled to deduction under Section

M/S DALMIA POWER LTD. vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA

depreciation etc. 5.   The counsel appearing for the Department relied on Section 139(5) and 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act r.w. Circular No.9   of   2015   issued   by   the   CBDT   to   contend   that   the 22 Appellant   ought   to   have   made   an   application   for condonation   of   delay,   and   sought   permission   from   the CBDT, before filing the revised Returns beyond

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

M/S LIBERTY INDIA vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,KARNAL

5) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, the profits and gains of an eligible business to which the provisions of sub-section (1) apply shall, for the purposes of determining the quantum of deduction under that sub-section for the assessment year immediately succeeding the initial assessment year or any subsequent assessment year, be computed

SUNDARESH BHATT vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

5 and much stress has been laid on the observations of time value in the following terms28 : “5.5 A time-bound, efficient Liquidation Liquidation is the state the entity enters at the end of an IRP, where neither creditors nor debtors can find a commonly agreeable solution by which to keep the entity as a going concern. In India

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

5(1) and (1A) of the Rules read with Appendix-1 and Appendix-1A, it is evident that while sub- rule (1) provides for allowance of depreciation in respect of any block of assets in terms of the second column of the table in Appendix 1, sub-rule (1A) enables an assessee to seek allowance of depreciation of assets acquired

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

5,000/- came within the “block of 9 assets” as defined under Section 2(11) of the 1961 Act. As stated, this judgment is confined to depreciable

M/S. SARAF EXPORTS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR - III

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

5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (22 of 1992); XXXXXXXX” “80-IB. Deduction in respect of profits and gains from certain industrial undertakings other than infrastructure development undertakings.—(1) Where the gross total income of an assessee includes any profits and gains derived from any business referred to in sub-sections (3) to (11), (11

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX-I,NEW DELHI vs. VATIKA TOWNSHIP P.LTD

Appeals of the assessees are allowed deleting the surcharge levied by the

5 of 57 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 540 of 2009) Page 6 JUDGMENT provisions of Section 113 of the Act as inserted by the Finance Act, 1995 and clarified by the Board Circular No.717 dated 14.08.1995, surcharge was leviable on the income assessed. According to the CIT the charging provision was Section 4 of the Act which

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

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

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,DIBRUGARH vs. DOOM DOOMA INDIA LTD

5 8. The key word in Section 43(6)(b) of the 1961 Act is “actually”. We quote hereinbelow an important observation, made by this Court on the meaning of the words “actually allowed” in Section 43 (6)(b) in the case of Madeva Upendra Sinai v. Union of India and Others – (1975) 98 ITR 209 at pages

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

Appeals are allowed

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

5 of 22 different heads of income, namely, salaries, income from house property, profits and gains of business or profession, capital gains and income from other sources. Insofar as income under the head ‘profits and gains of business or professions’ is concerned, provisions thereto are contained in Sections 28 to 44DB of the Act. Section 28 specifies various incomes which