COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA MILLS

The appeal is dismissed

depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and said: - "The provisions of section 32 are intended to give

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

32 - Depreciation (1) In respect of depreciation of buildings, machinery, plant or furniture owned by the assessee and used for the purposes of the business or profession, the following deductions shall, subject to the provisions of Section 34, be allowed: (i) xxx xxxx xxx (ii

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 and by taxing the interest income of Rs.1,07,85,590 as income from other sources and thus raised the demand of Rs. 1,30,83,741 under various heads and sections of taxes, surcharge and additional tax under Sections 143(1A), 234A and 234B. 4. Mr. Shah, learned counsel appearing for the assessee, has contended that

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

Section 32(1)(ii), which reads as follows: “Depreciation. 32.(1) In respect of depreciation of buildings, machinery, plant or furniture

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

32- 37, on the other hand, deal primarily with business, commercial or professional expenditure, under various heads (including depreciation). Each of these deductions, has its contours, depending upon the expressions used, and the conditions that are to be met. It is therefore necessary to bear in mind that specific enumeration of deductions, dependent upon fulfilment of particular conditions, would qualify

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

32(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the assessee was entitled to claim 100% depreciation. However, after the amendment the depreciation could only be 75%. The assessee supported the returns with provisional revenue account, balance sheet as on 31.03.1991, details of gross fixed assets, computation chart and depreciation chart. No tax was payable on the said return

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III, BANGALORE vs. M/S WIPRO LIMITED

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

32(1) (ii-a) of the IT Act. That provision gave the assessee the option to claim additional depreciation, over and above the usual or ordinary depreciation mandatorily allowed under Section

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

32. Therefore, Parliament has used the expression “any expenditure” in Section 37 to cover both. Therefore, the expression “expenditure” as used in Section 37 may, in 11 the circumstances of a particular case, cover an amount which is really a “loss” even though the said amount has not gone out from the pocket of the assessee. 14. In the case

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

32. Clause (d) of Section 17(5) is different from clause (c) in various aspects. Clause (d) seeks to exclude from the purview of sub-section (1) of Sections 16 and 18, goods or services or both received by a taxable person to construct an immovable property on his own account. There are two exceptions in clause

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

Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with effect from 1.4.1976? FACTS (C.A. NO. 7115 OF 2005) For the assessment year 1996-97, the assessee-appellant returned an income of Rs. 1,32,44,507.29 subject to depreciation. The depreciation claimed for the year was Rs.1,47,97,995.01 computed as under:- Depreciation for Assessment year

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

32 matters dealt with therein, in computing the income referred to in section 28 – (vii) subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), the amount of any bad debt or part thereof which is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee for the previous year: Provided that in the case of an assessee to which clause (viia

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

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

32-A or clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 72 or section 73 or section 74 or sub- section (3) of section 74A or sub-section (3) of section 80J." The question to be determined in all these appeals is whether the deductions which are permissible under the provisions of the Act can be considered to have been

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 is concerned, that was not mentioned therein. Thus, according to him, it is these two sub-sections which contained special provisions and except that, for computing the profits and gains of the business, Sections 30 to 43D had to be applied which would embrace Section 32 as well. 12 8) Counsel appearing in other appeals for the assessees made

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

II \026(1958) 34 ITR 265]. All that is germane is : whether the borrowing was, or was not, for the purpose of business. The expression "for the purpose of business" occurring in Section 36(1)(iii) indicates that once the test of "for the purpose of business" is satisfied in respect of the capital borrowed, the assessee would be entitled

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

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

The appeals are allowed and the

32-A or clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 72 or Section 73 or Section 74 or sub-section (3) of Section 74-A or sub- section (3) of Section 80-J.\024 A new Chapter XII-B containing section 115J was inserted by the Finance Act, 1987 with effect from Ist April, 1988. This new section made