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

1A) The allowance under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 32 of the Act in respect of depreciation

M/S.VIRTUAL SOFT SYSTEMS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-I

1A) was amended by Finance Act, 1993 with retrospective effect from 1.4.1989, the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) have been amended much later by Finance Act, 2002 with prospective effect from 1.4.2003. The two questions which arise in the present cases are, prior to http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 17 the amendments by the Finance

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

Appeals are disposed of with the aforementioned directions

depreciation was not causing any prejudice to the interest of Revenue at least in the year under consideration and the apprehension of the learned CIT about such prejudice which may be caused to the Revenue in the subsequent years was based on 29 assumptions and surmises depending on ultimate eventualities like the one happened in the present case when

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

depreciation as claimed and by taxing the interest income of Rs.1,07,85,590 as income from other sources and thus raised the demand of Rs. 1,30,83,741 under various heads and sections of taxes, surcharge and additional tax under Sections 143(1A

M/S. DYNAMIC ORTHOPEDICS PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN

depreciation to be deducted in pursuance of clause (k) of sub-section (4) of section 349 shall be the amount calculated with reference to the written down value of the assets as shown by the books of the company at the end of the financial year expiring at the commencement of this Act or immediately thereafter

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. UNITED PROVINCES ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO

In the result, appeal is allowed

depreciable assets of the assessee and as per the details given in his order computed the written down value of those assets at Rs.2,06,48,985/- and determined the profit of Rs.1,29,35,557/- under Section 41(2) of the Act and added the same to the income of the assessee. In appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner

M/S KARNATAKA SMALL S.INDT.DEV.COR.LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,BANGALORE

1A) Every asseseee, being a company, shall, for the purposes of this section, prepare its profit and loss account for the relevant previous year in accordance with the provisions of Parts II and III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956. (2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall affect the determination of the amounts in relation

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

depreciation cannot be taken into account, despite the fact that while the Bill of Entry of the car was presented in 1996, the clearance was given on 28.3.2005. The submission of the appellant that there was delay of nine years in releasing the car from the date of import has in our opinion no relevance at all as the value

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) 2 vs. M/S MAHAGUN REALTORS (P) LTD

The appeal is allowed, in the above terms, without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 2 (1A) and various other provisions of the Income Tax Act, is that despite amalgamation, the business, enterprise and undertaking of the transferee or amalgamated company- which ceases to exist, after amalgamation, is treated 18 1988 (1) SCR 1088 19 [2004] Supp (3) SCR 535 21 as a continuing one, and any benefits, by way of carry forward

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

depreciation under sub- section (2) of section 32; (b) of a firm, or its partners, the method of computation of undisclosed income and its allocation to the partners shall be in accordance with the method adopted for determining the as- 21 Page 22 JUDGMENT sessed income or returned income for each of the previous years falling within the block period

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE

The appeal is allowed

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

1A) An immunity granted to a person under sub-section (1) shall stand withdrawn if such person fails to pay any sum specified in the order of settlement passed under sub-section (4) of section 245D within the time specified in such order or within such further time as may be allowed by the Settlement Commission, or fails to comply

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX-IV,DELHI vs. M/S HCL COMNET SYSTEMS & SERVICES LD

Accordingly the same is dismissed with no order as

depreciation for such financial year or part of such financial year falling within the relevant previous year. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, "book profit" means the net profit as shown in the profit and loss account for the relevant previous year prepared under sub- section (2), as increased by- (a) & (b) xxx xxx xxx 3 (c) the amount

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

1A) of the IT Act, 1961, when the authorities satisfy themselves with respect to the genuineness of the activity and scope of the trust. 39 (2008) 13 SCC 1 40 2018 SccOnline Delhi 7536 41 The High Court had relied upon the ratio in Shri Ramtanu Co-operative Housing Society Limited v. State of Maharashtra (1970) 3 SCC 323 , which