COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,DIBRUGARH vs. DOOM DOOMA INDIA LTD

Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of assessment years 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991- 92. 4. What is the meaning of the expression “depreciation

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

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

260A of the Act. However, the same may not apply on interest as the interest is automatic and mandatory. 4.14 Making above submissions and relying upon the aforesaid decisions, it is prayed that the present appeals be dismissed. Consideration: 5. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length. We have also gone through the orders passed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. CORE HEALTH CARE LTD

260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, stood dismissed. 3. On 31.12.92 assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 1992-93 declaring "nil" income. Later on the assessee filed a revised return on 6.8.93 declaring a loss of Rs.1,11,68,543/-. Assessee-company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of intravenous solutions. For the assessment

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

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

260A of the Act. The High Court, inter alia, refers to the appellant filing Return for the 11 Assessment Year 1996-1997, disclosing total income of Rs.576133/-. 14. Reference is made to the addition of Rs.1,04,72,720.30 on the basis of short supply of bitumen. After referring to the submissions, the court focussed on the scope of Section

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

Appeals are disposed of with the aforementioned directions

260A of the Act. 24 22. We may, at this juncture, also notice the CBDT circular issued on 3.7.2001 vesting powers on different Commissioners; Item 27 whereof confers power in the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-VII, Delhi to exercise jurisdiction in respect of offices of the Income Tax Assessing Officer situate at Civil Lines (No. 114). 23. Before, however

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. A.R. ENTERPRISES

260A of the Act, questioning the validity of the order of the Tribunal. 5 Page 6 JUDGMENT Entertaining the appeal, the High Court formulated the following substantial question of law for adjudication: “Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in cancelling the assessment under Chapter XIV-B in light of the specific provision contained in Section 158BB

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

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

260A of the Act has reversed the findings of the Tribunal by deciding the appeals preferred by the revenue in its favour. 2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders passed by the High Court of Kerala (briefly “the High Court” hereinafter), the assessee had preferred special leave petitions to appeal before this Court and on leave being granted, civil appeals have

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

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

depreciation at 50% on the trucks leased out by it. 7. Being aggrieved, the revenue preferred an appeal to the High Court under Section 260A

JT. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, GUJARAT vs. UNITED PHOSPHOROUS LTD., GUJARAT

Appeal is partly allowed with no order as to cost

depreciation in respect of block of assets. In the case of Mahendra Mills (supra) the concept of block of assets was not there. In our view, substantial question of law did arise for determination before the High Court under Section 260A

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,RAJKOT vs. M/S GUJARAT SIDDHI CEMENT LTD

The appeal is disposed of accordingly

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short ‘Cit(A)’). The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer Was Upheld By The Cit(A) On The Ground That No Arguments Were Advanced & No Factual Details Were Furnished Regarding The Alleged Fluctuation On Account Of Foreign Exchange Rate. The Matter Was Carried In Further Appeal By The Assessee Before The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot (In Short ‘Tribunal’) Which Allowed The Claim Placing Reliance On A 2

260A of the Act before the High Court. By the impugned judgment the High Court upheld the view of the Tribunal referring to the judgment of Gujarat Fertilizers’s case (supra). 4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the subject matter of controversy is covered by a decision of this Court in Commissioner

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

260A of the Income Tax Act. Assessee also filed ITA No\005. of 2004 being aggrieved against a part of the order of the Tribunal. High Court allowed the ITA No. 340 of 2004 filed by the Revenue and held that the Tribunal was not right in deleting the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income

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

Appeals stand allowed as mentioned hereinabove but with

depreciation, the taxable income of the Assessee was NIL and hence, there was no tax liability. According to Assessee, in such a case no penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) could have been levied. 16. Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, Special Range-2, C.As. @ SLP (C) No. 5241 of 2007 etc…. (contd.) 7 Surat, on the basis of the discussion

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

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

depreciation from Straight Line Method to Written Down Value Method and, therefore, the judgment of this Court in Apollo Tyres case was not applicable. We have referred to the http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6 3 submissions of both sides on merits with which we are strictly not concerned. In this case we are only concerned

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

260A of the 1961 Act before the High Court. Following the decision of this Court in Sterling Food (supra), the High Court held that the assessee(s) had failed to prove the nexus between the receipt by way of duty drawback/DEPB benefit and the industrial undertaking, hence, the assessee(s) was not entitled to deduction under Section