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 should take the meaning of or refer to intangible assets and not the species of intangible assets, such as, know-how, patents, copyrights, trade marks, licences and franchises. Thus, the submission is that under intangible assets the abovestated intellectual property rights are the first category; and ‘other business or commercial rights’ fall within

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

31. Section 43B falls in Part-V of the IT Act. What is apparent is that the scheme of the Act is such that Sections 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

RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD JAIPUR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (ASSESSMENT)

In the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI

1-A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Brief facts necessary to be noted for deciding this appeal are: Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2022.09.17 13:31:00 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified 2 The assessee is a Government Company as defined under Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956. The assessee filed return

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS PVT.LTD

The appeal is allowed without

depreciation allowance or any other allow- ance under this Act has been computed. 148. Issue of notice where income has escaped assessment.\027(1) Before making the assessment, reassessment or recomputation under section 147, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice containing all or any of the requirements which may be included in a notice under

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

depreciation [Sections 32 and 43(1)], and also as regards capital assets for scientific research [Section 35(1)(iv)] and also regarding patent rights or copyrights [Section 35A]. 31

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

31,84,701/-, in all, totalling Rs. 1,02,03,121/- from which AO allowed deduction of Rs. 20,34,605/- on account of Hire Purchase Finance Charges leaving a balance provision for NPA of Rs. 81,68,516/-. Before the AO, Assessee claimed deduction in respect of Rs. 81,68,516/- under Section 36(1)(vii) being Provision

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

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 on ‘plant and machinery’ if the assessees choose to avail of ITC. Thus, ITC is allowable only when depreciation is not claimed. He submitted that

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

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

1,47,97,995.00 \026 Rs. 67,79,982.00 = Rs. 80,18,011.00) (viii) Making a deduction on account of depreciation as in sub-Paragraph (vii) above, the Appellant was assessed at a loss of Rs. 11,02,255.00 (Rs. 69,15,757.00) \026 Rs. 80,18,012.00 = - Rs. 11,02,255.00) In this manner, the carry-forward loss

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

Appeals are disposed of with the aforementioned directions

depreciation was not causing any prejudice to the interest of Revenue at least in the year under consideration and the apprehension of the learned CIT about such prejudice which may be caused to the Revenue in the subsequent years was based on 29 assumptions and surmises depending on ultimate eventualities like the one happened in the present case when

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

1) provides is that if any person who produces electricity has surplus electricity, he may dispose of such surplus electricity by entering into an arrangement with the State Electricity Board for supply of such surplus electricity by him and purchase thereof by the State Electricity Board. 16.1. Section 43A provides for the terms, conditions and tariff for sale of electricity

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE

The appeal is allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

depreciation on the investments portfolio of the bank classified as permanent investments. 2.4. When matters stood thus, the concluded assessments for earlier assessment years were reopened by issuance of notices under Section 148 of the Act. The appellant filed returns under protest with respect to the said assessment years. 2.5. Before the Settlement Commission, the Respondents-Revenue raised a preliminary

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

depreciation under sub- section (2) of section 32; (b) of a firm, or its partners, the method of computation of undisclosed income and its allocation to the partners shall be in accordance with the method adopted for determining the as- 21 Page 22 JUDGMENT sessed income or returned income for each of the previous years falling within the block period

BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX

31 and 32 of the Act, for the first time the expression "residential accommodation including any accommodation in the nature of a guest house" has been used in Sub-section (3) of Section 37 of the Act. As will be seen, Sub-section (3) of Section 37 indicates that notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1) any expenditure incurred

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

31, 1994 Assistant Collector of Central Excise passed his order in original in which he agreed with the appellant to the extent that the date of debonding should be taken as November 15, 1993 when the appellant paid the applicable duties and not February 2, 1994 when formal letter of debonding was issued by the Ministry of Textiles. However

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

31-8-1965, which provides that depreciation could not be allowed where the required particulars have not been furnished by the assessee and no claim for the depreciation has been made in the return. The Income Tax Officer in such a case is required to compute the income without allowing depreciation allowance. The circular of the Board dated

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

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