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

D of Chapter IV dealing with ‘profits and gains from business or profession’. Section 29 of the Act, in this behalf, specifically stipulates that income referred to in Section 28 shall be computed in accordance with provisions contained in Sections 30 to 43D. In this hue, he argued, when it comes to claiming depreciation, Section 32 of the Act gets

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

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

D G M E N T M.R. SHAH, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 30.11.2020 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Income Tax Appeal No. 462/2017, by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the Revenue and has confirmed the judgment and order dated

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I vs. M/S RELIANCE ENERGY LTD (FORMERLY BSES LTD.) THROUGH ITS M.D

The Appeal is dismissed qua the issue of the extent of deduction under

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

depreciation. 2 | P a g e The Assessing Officer considered the revised claim of the Assessee under Section 80-IA and determined the amount eligible for deduction under Section 80-IA at Rs. 492,78,60,973/- against the Assessee’s claim of Rs. 546,26,01,224/-. However, the Assessing Officer stated in the assessment order that the actual

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

D. No. 22308/2022 has been filed by the revenue against the judgment and order dated 11.01.2022 passed by the Madras High Court dismissing Tax Case (Appeal) No. 600 of 2010 (CIT, Chennai Vs. M/s. Pentasoft Technologies Limited) of the revenue for the assessment year 2001-02. 5. The perennial question of whether an expenditure incurred by an assessee is capital

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 DALMIA POWER LTD. vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA

D G M E N T  INDU MALHOTRA, J.   Leave granted. 1.   The issue which arises for consideration in the present Civil Appeals is whether the Department ought to have permitted the   assessee   companies   to   file   the   revised   Income   Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 2016­2017 after the expiry of   the   due   date   prescribed   under   Section   139(5

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

depreciation; or (iv) the amount of profits derived by an industrial undertaking from the business of generation or generation and distribution of power; or (v) the amount of profits derived by an industrial undertaking located in an industrially backward State or district as referred to in sub-section (4) and sub- section (5) of section 80-IB, for the assessment

SUNDARESH BHATT vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

5 and much stress has been laid on the observations of time value in the following terms28 : “5.5 A time-bound, efficient Liquidation Liquidation is the state the entity enters at the end of an IRP, where neither creditors nor debtors can find a commonly agreeable solution by which to keep the entity as a going concern. In India

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

d) a port, airport, inland waterway or inland port; (ii) any undertaking which has started or starts providing telecommunication services whether basic or cellular, including radio paging, domestic satellite service, network of trunking, broadband network and internet services on or after the 1st day of April, 1995, but on or before the 31st day of March, 2003. Explanation

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

d) of sub-section (1) of section 158BB. In any case although there is a difference between the regular assessment and the block assessment, as we have already noticed, unless the provisions of the block assessment specifically bar the assessing authority from taking into consideration the income disclosed by the assessee on payment of the advance tax to be taken

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

Appeals are allowed

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

D G M E N T A.K. SIKRI, J. Leave granted. Delay condoned. 2) In all these appeals issue relates to the interpretation that is to be accorded to the provisions of Section 80HH of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). Section 80HH and other related provisions, as it existed at the relevant time

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

17:23:35 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified 2 UJJAL BHUYAN, J. There are three special leave petitions in this batch, viz., SLP (C) No.15564 of 2020, SLP (C) No.5871 of 2020 and SLP (C) No.792 of 2021. Leave in these special leave petitions are therefore granted. 2. Core issue raised in this batch of civil appeals being identical, those

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

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

d) any profit on the transfer of the Duty Entitlement Pass Book Scheme, being the Duty Remission Scheme under the export and import policy formulated and announced under Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (22 of 1992); (iii-e) any profit on the transfer of the Duty Free Replenishment Certificate, being the CIVIL APPEAL

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

d. During this period, appellant undertook various expenditures including administrative charges, audit fees etc. with the Page 3 of 13 intention of carrying out its business activities as well as realising tax refunds from the Income Tax Department.3 e. For the relevant assessment years, the appellant filed its return showing ‘NIL’ income. The only income credited was under the head

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

5 of 6 only. In sub-clause (ii) the legislature has specifically extended the benefit of 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. This Court rendered the decision in Barendra Prasad Ray’s case (supra

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

D G M E N T S. H. KAPADIA, J. 1. Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. This batch of civil appeals is directed against judgments dated 22.11.06 and 8.1.07 of the High Court of Guwahati, Assam, in appeals under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of assessment years

MCORP GLOBAL PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD

Accordingly, the civil appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed with no order as to costs

Bench: Coming To The Facts, The Following Is The Relationship Between The Parties: - M/S Glass & Ceramic Decorators Was The Manufacturer Of Soft Drink Bottles. - Assessee Was The ‘Lessor’. - M/S Coolade Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Was The ‘Lessee’. 4. During The Relevant Assessment Year, The Assessee Carried On The Business Of Trading In Lamination Machines & Binding & Punching Machines. In Addition, It Was Also Engaged In The Leasing Business. During The Year In Question, The Assessee Had Bought 5,46,000 Soft Drink Bottles From M/S Glass & Ceramic Decorators Worth Rs. 19,54,953/-. The Bottles Were Directly Supplied To M/S Coolade Beverages Pvt. Ltd. (“M/S Coolade” For Short) In Terms Of Lease Dated 15.2.1991. Vide Assessment Order Dated 28.3.1994, The Ao Found That M/S Coolade Had Received Only 42,000 Bottles Out Of The Total Of 2

D G M E N T S.H. KAPADIA, J. Leave granted. 2. This civil appeal filed by the assessee is directed against judgment and order dated 22.9.2006 in ITA No. 164/04 by the Delhi High Court. By the impugned judgment, confirming the decision of the Tribunal, the High Court has held that the appellant (assessee) is not entitled to claim

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

17 was without jurisdiction, having been issued beyond limitation and the Orders dated 23.07.2018 and 14.03.2019 invoking jurisdiction under Section 241A of the Act for the AY 2017-18 have no sanctity of law since the sine qua non for invoking that Section, i.e. processing of return was completed on 09.04.2019, even on merits, neither the Order dated