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; (b) of a firm, returned income and total income assessed for each

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

NECTAR BEVERAGES PVT. LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX

Section 41(2), which inter alia dealt with profit on sale of depreciable asset (balancing charge), stood deleted. Notwithstanding such

CHECKMATE SERVICES P LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

2) opens with a non-obstante clause and spells out what expenses and payments are not deductible in certain circumstances. Section 41 elaborates conditions which apply with respect to certain deductions which are otherwise allowed in respect of loss, expenditure or trading liability etc. If we consider this scheme, Sections 40- 43B, are concerned with and enact different conditions, that

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

Section 2 to include and always be deemed to have included rights of management or control or any other rights whatsoever. Based on such an analogy, rights acquired on payment of non-compete fee are property and hence assumes the character of a capital asset. Such an asset is an intangible asset and thus will be entitled for depreciation

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

M/S. I.C.D.S. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

depreciation under Section 32 of the 1 Page 2 JUDGMENT Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”). The assessment

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

depreciation allowance under section 32, investment allowance under section 32-A, losses under sections 72, 72A, 73, 74 and permissible deductions under section 80J to the following assessment year to be set off against the profits and gains of that assessment year. All that section 115-J(2

M/S. SYNCO INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. ASSESSING OFFICER,INCOME TAX MUMBAI &ANR

2) makes provisions for carry forward and set off of the unabsorbed depreciation of a particular year. The effect of the above mentioned provisions is that while computing the total income, the losses carried forward and depreciation have to be adjusted and thereafter the Assessing Officer has to work out the gross total income of the assessee. Sub-Section

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

Sections 139(5) and 119(2)(b) of the Act and Circular No. 9/2015 issued by the CBDT were inapplicable to a case where a revised ROI was filed pursuant to a Scheme of Arrangement and Amalgamation, approved and sanctioned by the National Company Law Tribunal. 27. In another recent decision, McDowell and Company Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income

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

Section 80P(2)(e) of the 1961 Act, exemption is available in respect of income derived only from letting out of godowns or warhouses. The income derived by the co-operative society for the purpose of exemption under clause (e) must be relatable to the letting out or the use of its godowns for any of the three purposes mentioned

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

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

2) of Section 80-IC, there cannot be another ‘initial 13 assessment year’ for the purposes of Section 80-IC within the aforesaid period of 10 years. While doing so, the Court referred to Section 80-IB(14)(c) of the Act, on the basis of which an opinion was formed that there cannot be another ‘initial assessment year

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

Appeals are disposed of with the aforementioned directions

Section 80-IA/80-IB – it was held that the activities of the assessee do not amount to manufacturing; (2) little consumption of electricity and thus manufacturing is without the aid of 25 power; (3) non-employment of requisite workers in manufacturing process; (4) non-fulfillment of the condition of new plant and machinery; (5) extra- ordinary high profits; (6) abrupt closure

M/S. O.K. PLAY (INDIA) LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI

section 2(f) of the said 1944 Act. It was further contended that no evidence was led by the department to show that the said powder was a marketable product. It was submitted that note 6(b) of Chapter 39 was not applicable as both granules and powder were of the same primary forms. It was urged that the department

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

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

2), would be entitled to deduction under sub-section (1) only to the extent of profits derived from such industrial undertaking after specified date(s). Hence, apart from eligibility, sub-section (1) purports to restrict the quantum of deduction to a specified percentage of profits. This is the importance of the words “derived from industrial undertaking” as against “profits attributable

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 37 of the Income Tax Act 19612, as well as carrying 1 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. 2 Hereinafter, ‘the Act’. Digitally signed by ARJUN BISHT Date: 2025.10.17 15:19:21 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified Page 2 of 13 forward of unabsorbed depreciation

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

The appeal is allowed without

depreciation allowance has been computed. Explanation 2.\027Production before the Assessing Officer of account books or other evidence from which material evidence could with due diligence have been discovered by the Assessing Officer will not necessarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of this section