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

depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 11.8. This finding of the ITAT came to be challenged before the Madras High Court by the revenue in Tax Case (Appeal) No. 600 of 2010. Madras High Court followed its earlier decision in 21 the case of the assessee itself for the assessment year 2002-03 and dismissed the appeal

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

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

depreciation under Section 32. 57. This Court is called upon to decide the ambit of the word ‘owner’ in section 69A in the facts before us. This Court agrees with the High Court that the concept of ‘owner’ cannot be divorced from the context in which the expression is employed. In the case of Jodha Mal (supra), the property undoubtedly

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

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

depreciation, and not the assessee. We are not persuaded to agree with the argument. The Section requires that the assessee must use the asset for the “purposes of business”. It does not mandate usage of the asset by the assessee itself. As long as the asset is utilized for the purpose of business of the assessee, the requirement of Section

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

depreciation on the assets used for power generation. This additional issue has been raised by the revenue in Civil Appeal No.13771 of 2015 (Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Jindal Steel and Power Ltd.). Revenue has also raised the issue of expenditure in Civil Appeal No.7425 of 2019 (Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Reliance Industries Ltd.). The expenditure claimed

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

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S WOODWARD GOVERNOR INDIA P. LTD

24. We also quote hereinbelow Section 43A, as it stands in the Statute book after substitution by the Finance Act 2002 w.e.f. 1.4.2003: “43A. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of the Act, where an assessee has acquired any asset in any previous year from a country outside India for the purposes of his business or profession

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

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

depreciation under section 32(1) (ii-a) of the Act. As per the settled position of law, an assessee claiming exemption has to strictly and literally comply with the exemption provisions. Therefore, the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the 21 case on hand, while considering the exemption provisions. Even otherwise, Chapter III and Chapter

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

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE

The appeal is allowed

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

depreciation on the investments portfolio of the bank classified as permanent investments. 2.4. When matters stood thus, the concluded assessments for earlier assessment years were reopened by issuance of notices under Section 148 of the Act. The appellant filed returns under protest with respect to the said assessment years. 2.5. Before the Settlement Commission, the Respondents-Revenue raised a preliminary

M/S MANGALORE GANESH BEEDI WORKS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MYSORE

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

24,700/- as a revenue expenditure permissible under Section 37 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ‘Act’) towards legal expenses incurred. The Assessee also claimed depreciation

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

VATSALA SHENOY vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

24 17. Section 45(1) of the 1961 Act speaks about capital gains arising out of “transfer” of a capital asset. The definition of the expression “transfer” is contained in Section 2(47) of the 1961 Act. It has very wide meaning. What is taxable under Section 45(1) of the 1961 Act is “profits and gains arising from

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

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

24. At the outset, we may advert to certain provisions of the Act as existed at the relevant point of time having a bearing on the present lis. Chapter XIV of the Act comprising Sections 139 to 158 deals with procedure for assessment. Section 139 mandates filing of income tax return. At the relevant point of time, this provision provided

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

24) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“IT Act” for short), while computing the profits and gains of the business under Sections 28 to 43D of the IT Act?” Facts For the sake of convenience, we may refer to the facts in the case of M/s. Southern Technologies Ltd. [Civil Appeal No. 1337 of 2003]. At the outset

JT.COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,SURAT vs. SAHELI LEASING & INDUSTRIES LTD

Appeals stand allowed as mentioned hereinabove but with

Section 143 (3) of the Act was passed on 27.2.1998, showing total income of Rs. NIL for assessment year 1995-1996. 14. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed that Assessee had claimed depreciation, which was viewed to be incorrect. Thus, an amount of Rs. 24

SREE AYYANAR SPINNING & WEAVING M.LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, the Civil Appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed with no order

Section 115J, the Deputy Commissioner added to the profit the excess depreciation which was debited in the profit and loss account in view of the difference which arose due to the change in the method of accounting adopted by the assessee for the claim of depreciation on machinery retrospectively from the year ending 30th June, 1983. The assessee had changed

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

24; and (ii) all goods falling under heading Nos.36.05 or 37.06. http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 21 (iii) ingots and billets of non-alloy steel falling under sub-heading Nos.7206.90 and 7207.90, manufactured in an induction furnace unit, whether or not any other goods are produced in such induction furnace, and hot re-rolled products