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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

v. DGIT(E)70, Bureau of Indian Standards v. DGIT(E)71 and GS1 India v. DGIT(E)72. 66. Mr. Ajay Vohra, learned senior counsel, appearing for the Apparel Export Promotion Council (AEPC) urged that it is a non-profit organization set up with approval of the Central Government, for promotion of exports of garments from India (i.e., promotion

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

depreciation). Each of these deductions, has its contours, depending upon the expressions used, and the conditions that are to be met. It is therefore necessary to bear in mind that specific enumeration of deductions, dependent upon fulfilment of particular conditions, would qualify as allowable deductions: failure by the assessee to comply with those conditions, would render the claim vulnerable

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

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

47 to Burma during the subsistence of the agreement and that it would assist Coal Shipments Pvt. Ltd. in procuring coal for shipment to Burma. For this, Coal Shipments Pvt. Ltd. made certain payments to M/S HV Low & Co. Ltd. which were taxed in the hand of M/S HV Low & Co. Ltd. 21.1. Coal Shipments Pvt. Ltd. claimed the payment

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

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 Tax, Karnataka Central16 this court

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

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 and ITC. 29. Now we come to sub-Section (4) of Section 16. Before the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2022, the sub-section read thus: “16. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. (4) A registered person shall not be entitled to take input tax credit in respect of any invoice or debit note for supply of goods or services or both after

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

v. Mahendra Mills2 held that it is a choice of an assessee whether to claim or not to claim depreciation. As aforesaid, that decision was rendered in the context of assessing business income of an assessee under Chapter IV of the Act which is regulated by Sections 28 to 43D of the Act. Section 32 deals with depreciation and allows

VATSALA SHENOY vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

depreciable assets. For the purposes of calculation/ computation, figures were taken from Table II incorporated in the Assessment Order itself mentioning the market value of these assets. This Table II reads as under: S.No. Asset %age Sales/Market Value Amount in assessee's case 1. Land as per H.S. Seshagiri – Registered Valuer 19.00 17,47,90,000 2

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

2) has no application. We may, therefore, refer to sub-rule (1A) along with the provisos thereto which read as under: (1A) The allowance under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 32 of the Act in respect of depreciation of assets acquired on or after 1st day of April, 1997 shall be calculated at the percentage specified

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

The appeals are allowed and the

2 has to be answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee.\024 Mr. Vellapally further placed reliance on Commissioner of Income Tax v. Loyal Textiles Mills Ltd. (2003) 261 ITR 307 (Madras), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Thiroo Arooran Sugars Ltd. (2006) 152 Taxman 344 (Madras), Cochin Cadalas (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income

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

depreciation in investments in the Balance Sheet under “Current Liabilities and Provisions” and that such provision for each year shall be debited to P&L Account so that a true and correct figure of “Net Profit” gets reflected in the financial accounts of the company. The effect of such Disclosure is to increase the current liabilities by showing the provision

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

47 (Kerala High Court, CIT v. N. Krishnan), 259 ITR page 229 (Madras High Court, Ramnath Goenka v. CIT), 276 ITR page 649 (M.P. High Court, CIT v. Jabalpur Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd.), 279 ITR page 197 (Allahabad High Court, CIT v. Zam Zam Tanners), 278 ITR page 140 (Calcutta High Court, CIT v. R.G. Sales

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

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

47 of 67 i) The findings by the AO that the assessee had failed to prove that the commission payments earned by them is exclusively in Sikkim had not been dislodged by the assessee by producing any tangible material; ii) The evidence produced by the assesses are only copies of bills and vouchers and receipt of money from such agents

M/S. MANGALAM PUBLICATIONS, KOTTAYAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM

Bench: This Court & On Leave Being Granted, Civil Appeals Have Been Registered. 3.

Depreciation Balance Under- Assessment 1990-91 90079199 4329815 85749384 6324989 1991-92 82124877 6222432 75902441 5598817 1992-93 72294757 3575079 68719678 5068892 Total under-assessment 16992728 42 In view of the above, I have reason to believe that by reason of omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary

SUNDARESH BHATT vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

depreciation. From the viewpoint of creditors, a good realisation can generally be obtained if the firm is sold as a going concern. Hence, when delays induce liquidation, there is value destruction. Further, even in liquidation, the realisation is lower when there are delays. Hence, delays cause value destruction. Thus, achieving a high recovery rate is primarily about identifying and combating

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

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

47,76,990/- and claimed exemption under Section 10B of the IT Act. Along with the original return filed on 31.10.2001, the assessee annexed a note to the computation of income in which the assessee clearly stated that the company is a 100% export-oriented unit and entitled to claim exemption under Section 10B of the IT Act and therefore

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

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

47 of the powers of use and disposal allowed by law .... The owner of a thing is not necessarily the person who at a given time has the whole power of use and disposal; very often there is no such person. We must look for the person having the residue of all such power when we have accounted for every