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

Appeals are disposed of with the aforementioned directions

148 of the Act for the earlier and subsequent years was illegal and bad in law, and, thus, the proceedings so initiated were also illegal, bad in law and were liable to be quashed. 18. Mr. I. Venkatanarayana, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue, on the other hand, would contend: i. CIT (Shimla) had the locus standi

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS PVT.LTD

The appeal is allowed without

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148

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

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

148 of the Act had CA 5769/2022 Etc. Page 20 of 67 no territorial jurisdiction. That the proper course for the Department was to have the matter entrusted to ACIT, Gangtok after complying with the mandate of section 127 of the Act for transferring jurisdiction of ACIT, Gangtok to New Delhi. It is submitted that though the Revenue

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD NO.16(2) vs. M/S TECHSPAN INDIA PRIVATE LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. TECHSPAN INDIA LTD.) THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIR

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148

NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S. KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in Sections 148

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,CHENNAI vs. M/S ALAGENDRAN FINANCE LTD

depreciation allowance has been computed. In either case whether the Income-tax Officer invokes his jurisdiction under Clause (a) or Clause (b) or both, the proceedings for bringing to tax an ’escaped assessment’ can only commence by issuance of a notice under Section 148

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

148 once again declaring loss of Rs. 10,77,276/-, the same as was in the original return of income. The main reason for reopening of assessment under Section 147 was the claim of depreciation

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

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

148 of the Indian Contract Act may be said to be wide enough so as to cover “entrustment of goods” to a carrier for carriage. But as pointed out above, with the enactment of the Carriers Act, 1865, the extent of liability of the carrier has to be found in that Act.” “25. We have already reproduced the provisions

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) CIRCLE 1(2) vs. M/S M.R. SHAH LOGISTICS PVT. LTD

Appeal is allowed in these terms, without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year (hereafter in this section and in sections 148

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

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE

The appeal is allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

depreciation on those assets under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for the sake of convenience) though the appellant was not the owner of the assets for the purpose of the said transactions. 2.2. On 09.06.2000 the Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 148

SHIV RAJ GUPTA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI IV

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

depreciation, reserves etc., a part of it should in all fairness go to the employees.” Also, this Court in S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (2007) 1 SCC 781 held as follows: “36. We agree with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Dalmia Cement (B) Ltd. [(2002) 254 ITR 377 (Del)] that once it is established

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