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

depreciation had to be reduced for computing the profits eligible for deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act, as it was a complete code in itself. For arriving at the said conclusion, the Full Bench took note of the relevant provisions of 12 (2003) 261 ITR 721 13 (2003) 259 ITR 77 14

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

14. Coming to the case law on the distinction between contract of sale and contract of agency, we may state that there is no straight- jacket formula. However, some important circumstances do bring out the effect of the transaction. In the case of Ramchandra Rathore and Bros. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh, Nagur

SUNDARESH BHATT vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

depreciation. From the viewpoint of creditors, a good realisation can generally be obtained if the firm is sold as a going concern. Hence, when delays induce liquidation, there is value destruction. Further, even in liquidation, the realisation is lower when there are delays. Hence, delays cause value destruction. Thus, achieving a high recovery rate is primarily about identifying and combating

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI vs. M/S. BUREAU VERITAS

depreciation method is adopted, the computation as done by the Commissioner was not correct one. Accordingly, the appeals were allowed and the duty and penalty imposed, interest charged were set aside. In support of the appeal Mr. A.K. Ganguli, learned senior counsel submitted that the approach of the Tribunal is clearly erroneous. It proceeded on the basis

M/S M.S.SHOES EAST LTD. vs. COMMR.OF CUSTOMS,NEW DELHI

depreciation should be allowed on the car for the purpose of valuation for the post import period. Under Section 14

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

Section 10(1) of the 1961 Act read with Rule 8, 40 per cent of the business income derived from the sale of tea grown and manufactured in India by the assessee was liable to tax. In the above judgment of the Supreme Court, the Court was concerned with the world income, in this case we are concerned with

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

depreciation was not admissible under Section 32(1)(ii). 14. To decide the above controversy, we need to examine the Rules

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. A.R. ENTERPRISES

14 Page 15 JUDGMENT section 144 and section 145 shall, so far as may be, apply;...” [Emphasis supplied] 17. Section 158B of the Act, which encompasses the crux of the issue, reads as follows: “Definitions. 158B. In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires, - (a) "block period" means the previous years relevant to ten assessment years preceding the previous year

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

Appeals are allowed

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

14 of 22 17) At the outset, it needs to be pointed out that in these cases, the Court is concerned with the provisions of Section 80HH of the Act and, therefore, the language used in that particular provision is to be kept in mind. As noted above, sub-section (1) of Section 80HH allows “a deduction from such profits

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

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

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

14. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have received the due consideration of the Court. 15. Since the core issue is relatable to Section 80-IA of the Act, it would be apposite to advert to and analyse the aforesaid provision. Section 80-IA deals with deductions in respect of profits and gains from industrial undertakings or enterprises

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

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

14. Shri N. Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General, has made detailed submissions. He brought our attention to provisions regarding taxation on goods and services in the pre-GST and post-GST eras. He submitted that in the GST regime, the taxable event is one common event, namely, the supply of goods and services. He invited the attention of the Court

VATSALA SHENOY vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

14) of the Act. It is not even disputed. Once it is held to be the “capital asset”, gain Page 22 JUDGMENT 22 therefrom is to be treated as capital gain within the meaning of Section 45 of the Act. 25) The assessees, however, are attempting the wriggle out from payment of capital gain tax on the ground that

M/S. SOUTHERN TECHNOLOGIES LTD. vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, COIMBATORE

14 to 59. It is not an assessment Section. Section 145 helps to arrive at taxable total income. It nowhere indicates that the net profit arrived at shall be by adopting the accounting standards of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI). It is the 1998 Directions which inter alia states that NBFC shall not recognize any income from

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

depreciation to the assessees carrying on "business" as well as "profession" whereas in sub-section (iv), the legislature has restricted the benefit to the asseessees carrying on "business" only. 14

M/S D. N. SINGH THROUGH PARTNER DUDHESHWAR NATH SINGH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH

14 (1997) 5 SCC 482 52 claimed that the income must be assessed under Section 22. The claim was rejected on the ground that assessee was only a lessee and had only tenancy rights. The common question which arose in all the cases was the scope of Section 22 of the Act vis-a-vis Section