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

28 shall be computed in accordance with the provisions contained in sections 30 to 43D.” General: Section 37 : “(1) Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes

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

Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Based on the aforesaid decision, he submits that depreciation is allowable on 5 (2010) 327 ITR 323 28

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

28(ii)(a) of the Income Tax Act. Nor is it exempt as a capital receipt being non- compete fee, as it is taxable as a capital gain in the hands of the respondent-assessee as part of the full value of sale consideration paid for transfer of shares. This finding would clearly be in the teeth of Section

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

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

28. Profits and gains of business or profession.—The following income shall be chargeable to income tax under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession”, — XXXXXXXX (iii-a) profits on sale of a licence granted under the Imports (Control) Order, 1955, made under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 (18 of 1947); (iii-b) cash assistance

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

Appeals are allowed

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

28 shall be computed in accordance with the provisions contained in Sections 30 to 43D. These sections provide for deductions of various kinds. Among them, Section 32 relates to depreciation

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

depreciation allowance), Section 32A(investment allowance), Section 33(development rebate allowance), and Section 41(balancing charge). "Actual cost" of an asset has no relevancy in relation to Section 36(1)(iii) of the 1961 Act. This reasoning flows from a bare reading of Section 43(1). Section 43 defines certain terms relevant to income from profits and gains of business

NECTAR BEVERAGES PVT. LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX

depreciated at 100% under the proviso to Section 32(1)(ii) and hence did not form part of the block of assets. 12. For reasons given hereinabove, we are of the view that bottles and crates purchased prior to 31.3.1995 did not form part of the block of assets, hence, profits on sale of such assets were not taxable

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

28 to 38 deal with different kinds of deductions, whereas Sections 40 to 43B spell out special provisions, laying out the mechanism for assessments and expressly prescribing conditions for disallowances. In terms of this scheme, Section 40 (which too starts with a non- obstante clause overriding Sections 30-38), deals with what cannot be deducted in computing income under

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

Section 28 of the 1961 Act, for the purposes of computing the "written down value" of depreciable assets used in the tea business

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

depreciation allowance was originally computed, continued in the previous year relevant to the assessment year in question. It may be apposite to note that the said proviso has since been omitted by the Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 1st April, 2002. Page 9 of 13 11. It is evident that to avail the benefit of the aforesaid provisions, the appellant

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

Section 32(1)(ii) of the 1961 Act. Conclusion 25. We answer the question at page 6 in the affirmative by holding that on the facts and circumstances of these cases the Tribunal was right in holding that depreciation 28

M/S KARNATAKA SMALL S.INDT.DEV.COR.LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,BANGALORE

depreciation which would have been allowed on such assets in the regular method of assessment in accordance with the provisions of Section 28

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. G.K. CHOKSI & CO. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, GUJARAT

depreciation. In our opinion Barendra Prasad Ray’s case (supra) has no application in the present case. 17. Part D consists of Sections 28

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

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

28. This brings us to the pivotal section i.e. Section 147. Prior to the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, Section 147 read as under: 147. Income escaping assessment.—If (a) the Income Tax Officer has reason to believe that, by reason of the omission or failure on the part of an assessee to make a return under Section

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

depreciation in respect of leasing vehicles from 40% to 20%. Rs. 10,28,462.00 (iii) Unexplained share application money added back as unexplained cash credits under Section

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

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

28 for us to dwell further, as it is not the case of either party that the appellant had become the owner of the bitumen in question in a manner authorised by law. On the other hand, the specific case of the appellant is that the appellant never became the owner and it remained only a carrier. However, as noticed

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

28. Sub-section (3) of Section 16 is of some relevance as it provides that if a registered person has claimed depreciation