VODAFONE IDEA LTD(EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 26 (2)

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

depreciation as claimed should not be disallowed and why interest should not be taxed as receipt on the revenue account. It is contended by the assessee that the Assessing Officer was in the midst of the proceedings under Section 143(3

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

3) of Section 80-HHD, as the case may be; or (iv) the amount of the loss or the amount of depreciation

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

Appeals are disposed of with the aforementioned directions

Section 80-IA/80-IB – it was held that the activities of the assessee do not amount to manufacturing; (2) little consumption of electricity and thus manufacturing is without the aid of 25 power; (3) non-employment of requisite workers in manufacturing process; (4) non-fulfillment of the condition of new plant and machinery; (5) extra- ordinary high profits; (6) abrupt closure

M/S.SIV INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. COMMNR.OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS

depreciated value but at the rates prevalent at the time of import and also to pay customs duty on enhanced imported raw materials or components on the value at the time of import and at the rates in force at the time of clearance. Proviso to Section 3

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

depreciation claimed by it for the relevant previous year, under the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 115-J read with sections 32-A and 32-A (3

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

Section 16(3) of the CGST Act, which bars the claim of depreciation on ‘plant and machinery’ if the assessees

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 143(3) of the Act raising a demand of Rs. 55,25,86,888.00 besides initiating penalty proceedings. 8.3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of assessment, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings, assessee raised additional grounds of appeal, one of which related to depreciation

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

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in Sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year). 32 28.4. Thus, Section 147 as it stood at the relevant point of time provides that if the assessing officer has reason to believe that any income

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SHIMLA vs. M/S AARHAM SOFTRONICS

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

3) The deduction referred to in sub-section (1) shall be— xxx xxx xxx (ii) in the case of any undertaking or enterprise referred to in sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) or sub-clause (ii) of clause (b), of sub-section (2), one hundred per cent of such profits and gains for five assessment years commencing with the initial

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 under Section 80-IA of the Income Tax 3 Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). Interpreting the provisions

UDAIPUR SAHKARI UPBOKTA THOK BHANDER LD. vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX

3)(iv) of the 1922 Act. On reading the above judgment it becomes clear that under Section 80P(2)(e) of the 1961 Act, an assessee is entitled to claim special deduction from its gross total income to arrive at total taxable income. It is a special deduction which is provided for in that Section. It is not a charging

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL vs. DY.COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX & ANR.ETC.ETC

Appeals are allowed accordingly

Section 205(1) proviso (b) of the Companies Act whether depreciation include loss? (3) If an assessee had not incurred

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

BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX

section (3) no allowance shall be made in respect of any expenditure incurred by the assessee after 28th February, 1970, on the maintenance of any residential accommodation in the nature of guest house and no allowance shall be made in respect of depreciation

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

section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), equivalent to the duty of excise paid on such capital goods. (5) The credit of the specified duty on capital goods (other than those capital goods in respect of which credit of duty was allowable under any other rule or notification prior to the Ist day of March

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

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

3) would indicate that the seat of such power may be divided between two distinct and separate places. The expression “control and management” means de facto control and management and not merely the right or power to control and manage. In order to hold that a non- Indian company is resident in India during any previous year, it must

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

3) specifically deals with balancing charge in respect of assets relating to scientific research whereas Section 41(4) deals with recovery of bad debts earlier allowed. Therefore, each of the sub-sections deal with different and distinct topics and one cannot read recoupment under one sub-section into another. 9. The entire controversy, therefore, stands resolved if one understands