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

Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 8.6. ITAT vide the order dated 14.03.2008 relied on its previous decision in the assessee’s own case and held that non- compete fee was not an intangible asset and, therefore, depreciation could not be allowed on non-compete fee. 12

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

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

The appeals are allowed and the

depreciation whichever is less as computed under the provisions of section 205(1)(b) of the http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 12

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

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 10(1) of the 1961 Act read with Rule 8, 40 per cent

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

12 local authority or statutory body, the provisions of this section shall apply to the transferee enterprise as if it were the enterprise to which this clause applies and the deduction from profits and gains would be available to such transferee enterprise for the unexpired period during which the transferor enterprise would have been entitled to the deduction

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

12. Section 32 of the 1961 Act provides for a deduction of allowance being made in respect of depreciation of building

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

section further provided such depreciation allowance can be carried forward if the business or profession for which the depreciation allowance was originally computed, continued in the previous year relevant to the assessment year in question. It may be apposite to note that the said proviso has since been omitted by the Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 1st April, 2002. Page

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

depreciated at 100% under the proviso to Section 32(1)(ii) and hence did not form part of the block of assets. 12

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

Appeals are allowed

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

depreciation, Section 32AB gives deductions in respect of certain investment allowance. After providing for admissible deductions to an assessee, income under this head is ascertained. In a similar way, as noted above, income under the other heads is worked out. If a particular assessee has income under more than one heads, in the income tax returns, the said assessee would

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

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

Section 10B (8) of the IT Act, the case is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT, Maharashtra v. G.M. Knitting Industries Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 12 SCC 272. It is submitted that the case involved a claim for additional depreciation

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

12. We quote hereinbelow Section 28(i), Section 29 Section 37(1) and Section 145 of the 1961 Act, which read as follows: Profits and gains of business or profession: Section 28 : “The following income shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession", - (i) the profits and gains of any business

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

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

12. Mr. Rupesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the assessee had deliberately inflated its profits on account of generation of electricity only with a view to claim 19 higher deduction under Section 80 IA of the Act. Firstly, the Tribunal and thereafter the High Court had failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter

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

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

12. Since the provisions of Section 33 dealing with development rebate are similar to the provisions of Section 32-A, it is necessary to look at cases dealing with the grant of development rebate under Section 33. In the case of CIT v. Castlerock Fisheries (1980) 126 ITR 382 the Kerala High Court considered the case of an assessee which

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. The inclusive definition of ‘building’ to include roads etc. enlarges the scope of Section 32 and does not whittle down its effect. [1029 D] C.I.T. v. Coromandel Fertilsers

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

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