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

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 143(1) of the Act but subsequently the case was selected for scrutiny during which proceedings, assessee filed a revised 13 return increasing its loss. It also submitted a note on the admissibility of depreciation

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 37 of the Income Tax Act 19612, as well as carrying 1 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. 2 Hereinafter, ‘the Act’. Digitally signed by ARJUN BISHT Date: 2025.10.17 15:19:21 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified Page 2 of 13 forward of unabsorbed depreciation

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

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

13 (a) is set up in any part of India for the generation or generation and distribution of power if it begins to generate power at any time during the period beginning on the 1st day of April, 1993 and ending on the 31st day of March, 2006 ; (b) starts transmission or distribution by laying a network of new transmission

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

13. Per contra, learned senior counsel for the respondent assessee submits that there is no merit in all the appeals filed by the revenue on the issue of deduction under Section 80 IA of the Act. It is submitted that revenue is not justified in treating the price of electricity paid by the State Electricity Board to the assessee

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

13. Analysing the above two charts, we find that at the end of computation the income chargeable to tax by applying Rule 8 comes to Rs.240. Under Illustration ‘A’, the normal depreciation is Rs.100 which is deductible from Rs.1000 being the income from sale of tea. On the other hand, under Illustration ‘B’, we have taken 40 per cent

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. For reasons given hereinabove, we are of the view that bottles and crates purchased prior to 31.3.1995 did not form part of the block of assets, hence, profits on sale of such assets were not taxable

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

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

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

13. The provision on depreciation in the Act reads that the asset must be “owned, wholly or partly, by the assessee and used for the purposes of the business”. Therefore, it imposes a twin requirement of ‘ownership’ and ‘usage for business’ for a successful claim under Section

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

depreciation also to intangible assets enumerated in Section 32(1)(ii) in respect of know-how, patents, copyrights, trade marks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, being intangible assets acquired 18 on or after 1st April, 1998. In the lead matter, the assessee bought the membership card of BSE for Rs. 95 lakhs

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

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

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

13 of 36 though binding, the ITAT did not follow the decisions of this Court in the case of Liberty India (supra) and Sterling Foods, Mangalore (supra), and, therefore, the High Court has rightly set aside the order passed by the ITAT following the decisions of this Court in the case of Liberty India (supra) and Sterling Foods, Mangalore (supra

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

depreciation and allowances are dealt with in Section 32. Therefore, Parliament has used the expression “any expenditure” in Section 37 to cover both. Therefore, the expression “expenditure” as used in Section 37 may, in 11 the circumstances of a particular case, cover an amount which is really a “loss” even though the said amount has not gone out from

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

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

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

depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii-a) of the IT Act. 4.7 It is submitted that exactly the same principle applies to the interpretation of Section 10B (8) of the IT Act. Section 10B (8) enables an assessee to exclude the applicability of the deduction under Section 10B by filing a declaration to that effect before the last date

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

Appeals are allowed

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

13. The principle of statutory construction invoked by Ms Ramachandran has no application in construing the expression “gross total income” in sub-section (1) of Section 80-P. In view of the express provision defining the said expression in Section 80-B(5) for the purpose of Chapter VI-A, there is no scope for construing the said expression differently

RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD JAIPUR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (ASSESSMENT)

In the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI

13:31:00 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified 2 The assessee is a Government Company as defined under Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956. The assessee filed return on 30.12.1991 for the assessment year 1991-92 showing a loss amounting to Rs. (-)427,39,32,972/-. Due to a bonafide mistake the assessee claimed 100% depreciation