COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA MILLS

The appeal is dismissed

iv), even while making an assessment accepting the return of the assessee, the Income-tax Officer has to allow the proper deduction under section 32. Under section 143(3), an assessment made under section 143(1) is deemed to be incomplete or inadequate if proper depreciation

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes by the legislative history of these provisions, what is discernible is that Parliament’s endeavour in introducing Section 43B [which opens with its non-obstante clause] was to primarily ensure that deductions otherwise permissible and hitherto claimed on mercantile basis, were expressly

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

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

32. (1) In respect of depreciation of— (i) .. (ii)know-how, patents, copyrights, trade marks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, being intangible assets acquired on or after the 1st day of April, 1998, owned, wholly or partly, by the assessee and used for the purposes of the business 9 or profession, the following

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

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

IV which deals with computation of business income. Section 41 has a Head Note which says “Profits chargeable to tax”. Section 41(1) has remained unchanged, both, before 1.4.1988 and even after 1.4.1998. As stated above, Section 41(2), 6 however, stood deleted between assessment years 1988-89 and 1998-99 for about ten years. Under Section 41(1), where

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

iv) says that such deduction shall be allowed only in relation to the profits derived from laying of such network of new lines for transmission or distribution. 15.5. Crucial to the present discourse is sub-section (8) of Section 80- IA. Sub-section (8) reads as under: 33 (8) Where any goods held for the purposes of the eligible business

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

32 (current depreciation on the plant and machinery used for that business) as well as deduction under section 35(1)(iv

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

1,32,44,507.29 = Rs. 15,53,487.72) to the following year. By the assessment order dated 30.03.1999, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax assessed the appellant’s income at a figure of Rs. 47,03,120.00. This was because: (i) Disallowance of claim of depreciation of purchase and lease of cinematographic films held to be bogus

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

depreciation in investments. (3) Such provisions shall not be appropriated from the general provisions and loss reserves held, if any, by the NBFC. (4) Such provisions for each year shall be debited to the profit and loss account. The excess of provisions, if any, held under the heads general provisions and loss reserves may be written back without making adjustment

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

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

depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii-a) of the IT Act. 4.7 It is submitted that exactly the same principle applies to the interpretation of Section 10B (8) of the IT Act. Section 10B (8) enables an assessee to exclude the applicability of the deduction under Section 10B by filing a declaration to that effect before the last date

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

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

Appeals are disposed of with the aforementioned directions

iv. In any event, the Assessee cannot be said to have been prejudiced in any manner whatsoever by the order of the High Court, as the appeal although was improperly filed may be held to be maintainable. 19. The principal question which arises for consideration is as to whether the order of assessment was passed at the instance

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE

The appeal is allowed

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

32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for the sake of convenience) though the appellant was not the owner of the assets for the purpose of the said transactions. 2.2. On 09.06.2000 the Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act for the reassessment of income for the aforesaid assessment years

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

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

IV without giving effect to set off of brought forward losses under Chapter VI or unabsorbed 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

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

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

32-A, it is necessary to look at cases dealing with the grant of development rebate under Section 33. In the case of CIT v. Castlerock Fisheries (1980) 126 ITR 382 the Kerala High Court considered the case of an assessee which temporarily let out its cold-storage plant to a sister concern. The income derived by such letting

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

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 section