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

depreciation which they want to utilise in the subsequent years. This would be anathema to the scheme under Section 80-IA of the Act which is linked to profits and if the contention of the assessees is 21 accepted, it would allow them to inflate the profits linked incentives provided under Section 80-IA of the Act which cannot

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

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

21:46 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified 2. The respondent-assessee is a 100% export-oriented unit and engaged in the business of running a call centre and IT Enabled and Remote Processing Services. Assessee filed its return of income on 31.10.2001 for Assessment Year 2001-2002, declaring loss of Rs.15,47,76,990/- and claimed exemption under Section

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

5 (2010) 327 ITR 323 28 payment of non-compete fee as such payment results in acquisition of an intangible asset within the meaning of Explanation 3 to Section 32(1) of the Act. 12.11. Learned senior counsel therefore submits that firstly the expenses incurred by the assessee by way of non-compete fee is a revenue expenditure and therefore

M/S DALMIA POWER LTD. vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA

5) of section 230, the same shall be sent to the Tribunal within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of such notice and copy of such representation shall simultaneously be sent to the concerned companies and in case no representation is received within the stated period of thirty days by the Tribunal, it shall be presumed

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

depreciation in respect of such machinery or plant has been allowed or is allowable under the provisions of this Act in computing the total income of any person for any period prior to the date of the installation of the machinery or plant by the assessee. Explanation 2.-Where in the case of an industrial undertaking, any machinery or plant

SUNDARESH BHATT vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

21 of 59 Civil Appeal No.7722 of 2021 and Civil Appeal No.7731 of 2021 by the respondent No.2 - Liquidator has the potential of fetching greater value for the larger good of the stakeholders of the Corporate Debtor and deserves to be continued. Referring to the offer of ₹431 crores made by the appellant under the Second Swiss Challenge Process

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX-I,NEW DELHI vs. VATIKA TOWNSHIP P.LTD

Appeals of the assessees are allowed deleting the surcharge levied by the

5 of 57 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 540 of 2009) Page 6 JUDGMENT provisions of Section 113 of the Act as inserted by the Finance Act, 1995 and clarified by the Board Circular No.717 dated 14.08.1995, surcharge was leviable on the income assessed. According to the CIT the charging provision was Section 4 of the Act which

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

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

5) and sub-section (8) thereof, it is contended by the respondent that the price at which goods are transferred from one business of the assessee to another business should be at arm’s length i.e. the same should correspond to the market value of such goods for computing the profits of eligible business. In this connection, reference has been

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

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

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

21 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified (hereinafter referred to as “Duty Drawback”) and on transfer of Duty Entitlement Pass Book Scheme (hereinafter referred to as “DEPB”), the assessee has preferred the present appeal. 2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:- 2.1 The assessee, a partnership firm, was engaged in the business of manufacturing

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

21 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified Page 2 of 13 forward of unabsorbed depreciation under Section 32(2) of the Act for the Assessment Years 1996-1997, 1997-1998 and 1999-2000. FACTS: 2. Relevant facts for adjudication of the appeals are set out hereinunder: a. Appellant is a non-resident company incorporated in France and is engaged

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

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

Appeals are allowed

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

depreciation and investment allowance. Therefore, the term profits and gains are not synonymous with the term 'income'. However, the High Court correctly felt that it was bound by the judgment of this Court. 2. Motilal Pesticides(I) Pvt. Limited (Supra) is a Judgment of this Court which affirmed the Judgment of the Delhi High Court concerning the interpretation

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

Appeals are disposed of with the aforementioned directions

21 Section 120 of the Act provides for the jurisdiction of Income-tax authorities. Sub-section (1) thereof reads as under: “120. (1) Income-tax authorities shall exercise all or any of the powers and perform all or any of the functions conferred on, or, as the case may be, assigned to such authorities by or under this

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

5.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of this section shall not apply and shall be deemed never to have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which the provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies.” 6. The time limit

M/S. TECHNO SHARES & STOCKS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV

depreciation was not admissible under Section 32(1)(ii). 14. To decide the above controversy, we need to examine the Rules of BSE. 15. Rule 5, quoted above, states that membership shall constitute a personal permission from the Exchange to exercise the rights and privileges attached thereto. Rule 6 inter alia states that membership shall not be alienable. Rule

M/S. VIKRAM CEMENT vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE

depreciation under section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), or as revenue expenditure under any other provisions of the said Income-tax Act, in respect of that part of the value of capital http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 21 goods which represents the amount of specified duty on such capital goods