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

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

154 of the Act, by which, the matter stood remitted back, the Appeal of the Revenue and the Appeal of the appellant, challenging the Rectification Order, came to be dismissed. 13. This, in turn, triggered the Appeal, i.e., M.A. 214 of 2002 before the High Court by the appellant under Section 260A of the Act. The High Court, inter alia

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

Appeals are disposed of with the aforementioned directions

154 amending his order under section 263 or an order passed by a Chief Commissioner or a Director General or a Director under section 272A.” An appeal before the High Court would lie on a substantial question of law as provided for under Section 260A of the Act. 24 22. We may, at this juncture, also notice the CBDT circular

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

The appeals are allowed and the

depreciation as per the Income Tax Rules for the purposes of computing the book profit under section 115J of the Companies Act?\024 The questions raised by the assessee are as under: \0231. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was justified in upholding the finding of the CIT (Appeals) that the proceeding

HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD. vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,DELHI

The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs

154. It also finds place in section 254(2). The purpose behind enactment of section 254(2) is based on the fundamental principle that no party appearing before the Tribunal, be it an assessee or the Department, should suffer on account of any mistake committed by the Tribunal. This fundamental principle has nothing to do with the inherent powers

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

depreciation to 75%. Additional tax under Section 143(1-A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.8,63,64,827/- was demanded. The assessee filed an application under Section 154

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

depreciation under the head “it is more beneficial to it”. He submitted that in the modern era, theatre building and hotel building are integral part of operation for carrying out such business and, therefore, such building should be considered as a “plant”. Ultimately, in paragraph 67, this Court held thus: “67. In the result, it is held that the building

VODAFONE IDEA LTD(EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 26 (2)

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

154. 7. Apart therefrom, the provisions of Section 143(1) (a)(i) indicate that the intimation sent under Section 143(1)(a) shall be without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (2). The legislature, therefore, intended 6 (2003) 260 ITR 84 77 (1996) 222 ITR 140 Guj. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2377 OF 2020 (@ SLP (C) NO.1169 OF 2019) VODAFONE

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

154 of the IT Act while arriving at an income of Rs. 31,63,570/- which was fully set-off against the loss brought forward and the income was assessed as ‘Nil’ for the AY 2001-2002. (d) Further, on 10.02.2005, a Notice was served upon the Respondent by the Revenue for re-opening the assessment under Section

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

154 /2010 @ SLP(C) No. 22176/2009 TRANSFERRED CASE NO. 5/2005 & 6/2005 J U D G M E N T S.H. KAPADIA, J. Leave granted in the Special Leave Petition. Introduction An interesting question of law which arises for determination in these Civil Appeals filed by Non-banking Financial Companies (“NBFCs” for short) is: “Whether the Department is entitled to treat

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. UNITED PROVINCES ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO

In the result, appeal is allowed

depreciable assets as has been done by the I.T.O. He submitted that balancing charge has to be calculated with respect of each individual asset. In support of his contention, he referred to the decision of this Court in C.I.T., Gujarat vs. Artex Manufacturing Co., http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SHIMLA vs. M/S AARHAM SOFTRONICS

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

depreciation in any year. With an expansion of such a nature not only there would be increase in production but generation of more employment as well, which would benefit the local populace. It is for this reason, carrying out substantial expansion by itself is treated as ‘initial assessment year’. It would mean that even when an old unit completes substantial

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