BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX

depreciation of buildings, machinery, plant or furniture, being tangible assets along with other intangible assets. The facts involved in this case do not attract the provisions of Sections 30

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

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

30 to 36, the expressions “expenses incurred” as well as “allowances and depreciation” has also been used. For example, depreciation and allowances are dealt with in Section

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

Appeals are allowed

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

30 to 43D. These sections provide for deductions of various kinds. Among them, Section 32 relates to depreciation, Section 32AB

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

depreciation “actually allowed”. Hence we find no merit in the civil appeals filed by the Department. 17. Before concluding, we may state that the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Willamson Financial Services and Others – (2008) 297 ITR 17, has no application to the present cases. Willamson Financial Services case (supra) was rendered in the context

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

30 percent of the book profit. The Explanation to sub- section (1) of section 115J gives the definition of the "book profit" by incorporating the requirement of section 205 of the Companies Act in the computation of the book profit. Brought forward losses or unabsorbed depreciation

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

The appeals are allowed and the

30 per cent of the book profit.\024 The whole purpose of section 115J was to tax a company which had no taxable income, but showed a book profit. For instance, a company which adopted the method of straight-line depreciation

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

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

depreciation of previous years under Section 32(2) of the Act?’ 5 Vide order dated 13.10.2008 in SLP(C) No. 4510 of 2008. Page 8 of 13 ANALYSIS: 9. Section 37(1), inter alia, provides any expenditure (not being an expenditure in the nature described in Section 30

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

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

depreciation. Therefore, the general and specific statements on ownership construe ownership in favour of the lessee, and hence, are in favour of the Revenue. 26. We do not find merit in the Revenue’s argument for more than one reason: (i) Section 2(30

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

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

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

Section 2(30) was rejected. It was further found that if the lessee was in fact the owner, he would have claimed depreciation

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

30 (2020) 8 SCC 129 31 (1957) SCC OnLine SC 12 Civil Appeal No.2948 of 2023 etc. Page 26 of 91 He invited our attention to Section 16(3) of the CGST Act, which bars the claim of depreciation

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

Section 45JA RBI, having considered it necessary in public interest and being satisfied that for the purpose of enabling the Bank to regulate the credit system, it was necessary to issue directions relating to Prudential Norms, gives to every Non-Banking Financial Company the following directions. The said directions are called as “NBFCs Prudential Norms (Reserve Bank) Directions, 1998”: Definitions

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

30-38), deals with what cannot be deducted in computing income under the head “Profits and Gains of Business and Profession”. Likewise, Section 40A(2) opens with a non-obstante clause and spells out what expenses and payments are not deductible in certain circumstances. Section 41 elaborates conditions which apply with respect to certain deductions which are otherwise allowed

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

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

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

depreciation on plant) as has been done by the Tribunal, the Assessee would be quite satisfied. Unfortunately, the alternative aspect of the Assessee’s case was not looked into by the High Court. 29. Therefore, now the question to be answered is whether the Assessee is entitled to any benefit under Section 32 of the Act read with Section