COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA MILLS

The appeal is dismissed

depreciation which is allowable under the Act. Section 37 also uses the words "shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable". Under this Section any expenditure which is not expenditure as described in Sections 30 to 36

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) of the Act is allowable on such payment? 14.1. Supporting the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Sharp Business System, Mr. Dwarakanath submits that payment of non-compete fee is not in the nature of revenue 36

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

depreciation allowance), Section 32A(investment allowance), Section 33(development rebate allowance), and Section 41(balancing charge). "Actual cost" of an asset has no relevancy in relation to Section 36

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 to 36

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

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

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 to 36

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

depreciation under Section 32(1)(iv) though the word "profession" does not find mention in sub-clause (iv). That the words "business" and "profession" are defined separately under the Act; "business" has been defined under Section 2(13) and "profession" under Section 2(36

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

36 would not be applicable to the Central Government or any corporation created by a central act or any generating company. As per Section 45, the State Electricity Board has been empowered to enter upon and shut down a generating station if the same is in operation contravening certain provisions of the 1948 Act. 17. In so far facts

M/S. VEECUMSEES, MADRAS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS

The appeal is allowed

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. The High Court considered the second question referred to it first and came to the conclusion that, since the closing of the cinema business had not affected in the least the assessee’s old business in jewellery, there was no inter connection, inter lacing or inter dependence between the jewellery business

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

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

36 G. THE SALE OF GOODS ACT, 1930 42. Section 39 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, inter alia, contemplates delivery pursuant to a contract of sale by the seller to the carrier as prima facie to be deemed to be the delivery of the goods to the buyer. It becomes the responsibility of the buyer of a carrier

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

The appeal is allowed without

36(2) of the Act were not fulfilled, the assessing officer reopened the assessment by issuing a notice in terms of Section 148 of the Act on the ground that it has reason to believe that the income assessable to tax had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act. The respondent asked for the reason

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR vs. MCDOWELL & CO. LTD

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: The High Court Are As Follows: (1) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The I.T.A.T. Was Justified In Holding That The Unpaid Amount Of Bottling Fee Has, On Furnishing Of The Bank Guarantee, To Be Treated As Actual Payment & Accordingly Allowing The Deduction In Respect Of The Same Under Section 43B Of The Act, Even Though The Sum Has Not Been Actually Paid Before The Due Date Of Filing The Return Under Section 139(1) Of The Act. (2) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The I.T.A.T. Was Justified In Allowing The Depreciation On Research & Development Assets Which Related To The Closed Business Of Fast Food Division/Unit Of The Assessee-Company As Such Not Used During The Previous Year? (3) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The I.T.A.T. Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.2,77,887/- 2

depreciation on research & development assets which related to the closed business of fast food division/unit of the assessee-company as such not used during the previous year? (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the I.T.A.T. was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.2,77,887/- 2 being made treating the expenditure incurred in purchase

M/S. SARAF EXPORTS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR - III

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

36 (a) such machinery or plant was not, at any time previous to the date of the installation by the assessee, used in India; (b) such machinery or plant is imported into India from any country outside India; and (c) no deduction on account of depreciation in respect of such machinery or plant has been allowed or is allowable under

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

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,RAJKOT vs. M/S GUJARAT SIDDHI CEMENT LTD

The appeal is disposed of accordingly

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short ‘Cit(A)’). The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer Was Upheld By The Cit(A) On The Ground That No Arguments Were Advanced & No Factual Details Were Furnished Regarding The Alleged Fluctuation On Account Of Foreign Exchange Rate. The Matter Was Carried In Further Appeal By The Assessee Before The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot (In Short ‘Tribunal’) Which Allowed The Claim Placing Reliance On A 2

depreciation and other allowances because the allowance of development rebate can result in an assessee claiming allowances exceeding the original cost. It may be that the legislature thought that, though development rebate was intended to promote development of industries, this could not be allowed at the cost of the foreign exchange resources of the country which are also depleted when

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

depreciation and ITC. 29. Now we come to sub-Section (4) of Section 16. Before the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2022, the sub-section read thus: “16. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. (4) A registered person shall not be entitled to take input tax credit in respect of any invoice or debit note for supply of goods or services or both after

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE

The appeal is allowed

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

depreciation on permanent assets and securities. iii. The Commission’s order dated 11.12.2000, makes multiple references to the Report of the Commissioner, as required under Section 245D (1). Therefore, we find no substance in the submission of the Ld. ASG appearing on behalf of the Revenue that the procedure contemplated under Section 245D was not followed

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

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

Sections mentioned above. Feeling aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) who passed an order on 15th October, 1998. The appeal was allowed in part inasmuch as it was held that the Assessee was entitled to a deduction towards legal expenses. However, the claim of the Assessee regarding deduction or depreciation on the Intellectual