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

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

254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the said Act). The assessee is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It carries on the business of manufacture of cotton and man made fiber yarn. For the Assessment Year 1989-90, assessment under Section 143(3) was framed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai, wherein

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

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

The appeals are allowed and the

section 115J of the Act, depreciation could not be calculated as per provisions of the Income Tax Rules. Only the Gujarat High Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. Vardhman Fabrics (P) Ltd. (2002) 254

WIPRO FINANCE LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed

254 of the Act.  In other words, this decision is of no avail to the department. 12. Learned   counsel   for   the   department   had   also   relied   on   the decision of this Court in  Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Vadodara   vs.   Elecon   Engineering   Company   Limited13.     This 10 [2006] 284 ITR 323 11 supra at footnote No. 4 12 supra at footnote

MCORP GLOBAL PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD

Accordingly, the civil appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed with no order as to costs

Bench: Coming To The Facts, The Following Is The Relationship Between The Parties: - M/S Glass & Ceramic Decorators Was The Manufacturer Of Soft Drink Bottles. - Assessee Was The ‘Lessor’. - M/S Coolade Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Was The ‘Lessee’. 4. During The Relevant Assessment Year, The Assessee Carried On The Business Of Trading In Lamination Machines & Binding & Punching Machines. In Addition, It Was Also Engaged In The Leasing Business. During The Year In Question, The Assessee Had Bought 5,46,000 Soft Drink Bottles From M/S Glass & Ceramic Decorators Worth Rs. 19,54,953/-. The Bottles Were Directly Supplied To M/S Coolade Beverages Pvt. Ltd. (“M/S Coolade” For Short) In Terms Of Lease Dated 15.2.1991. Vide Assessment Order Dated 28.3.1994, The Ao Found That M/S Coolade Had Received Only 42,000 Bottles Out Of The Total Of 2

depreciation in respect of both the transactions amounting to Rs. 1,32,08,795 as against the claim of Rs. 1,80,30,489/-. Findings: 6. In the case of Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. CIT reported in (1967) 63 ITR 232 this Court has held that under Section 33(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 (equivalent to Section 254

OIL & NATURAL GAS CORP. LTD. TR. M.D. vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN

The appeals are allowed; the impugned orders are

depreciation allowance on plant and machinery purchased out of such foreign exchange loans for the assessment year under consideration. 4.Being dissatisfied, both the Assessee as well as the Revenue carried the matter in further appeals to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”). The Tribunal observed that the method of accounting adopted by the Assessee right from

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

depreciation in the value of the assets and, consequently, it is deductible under Section 37(1) of the IT Act. In this connection, appellant placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in 4 Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Woodward Governor India P. Ltd., 312 ITR 254

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

depreciation allowance which it was entitled to under the Income-tax Act came to Rs.7,84,063 thus converting the profit into a loss of Rs.2,19,848 for income-tax purposes, and the company was adjudged not to be liable to income-tax for the relevant assessment year 1951-52. The company, however, declared dividends in that year amounting

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

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX vs. M/S ADANI GAS LTD

The appeal is allowed in the above terms

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

depreciation. They are not collected as a consideration for providing a service; and under Article 366(29-A)(d), a tax on the sale or purchase of goods includes a tax on the transfer of the right to use goods for any purpose, without necessarily transferring the title. Section 65(105)(zzzzj) was introduced with the intention of capturing services

SHIV RAJ GUPTA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI IV

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

depreciation, reserves etc., a part of it should in all fairness go to the employees.” Also, this Court in S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (2007) 1 SCC 781 held as follows: “36. We agree with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Dalmia Cement (B) Ltd. [(2002) 254 ITR 377 (Del)] that once it is established