COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA MILLS

The appeal is dismissed

vi); (viii) rate of depreciation; (ix) total number of days worked to be furnished only if extra shift allowance is claimed; http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 21 (x) total number of days worked double shift and triple shift (to be furnished only if extra shift allowance is claimed); (xi) depreciation claimed (a) initial depreciation; (b) normal

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

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

36. This Section, according to the learned Author, covers cases of business expenditure only, and not of business losses which are, however, deductible on ordinary principles of commercial accounting. (see page 617 of the eighth edition). It is this principle which attracts the provisions of Section 145. That section recognizes the rights of a trader to adopt either the cash

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

VI and the expression “plant or machinery” occurs only once in Section 17(5)(d). 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 on ‘plant and machinery

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

vi) Accordingly, against the total amount of depreciation claimed at Rs. 1,47,97,994.00, an amount of Rs. 67,79,982.00 ( Rs. 57,51,520.00 + Rs. 10,28,462.00 = Rs. 67, 79, 982.00) was disallowed. (vii) Therefore, the depreciation allowable was Rs. 80,18,011.00 (Rs. 1

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

vi) xxxxxxxxxx" 9. Shri Sameer Parekh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that Part D of the Act reads as "Profit and Gains of Business or Profession". That, Section 32 relates both to "business" as also "profession" and since Section 32(1) of which (iv) is a sub clause, the assessee carrying on profession would be entitled

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

Appeals are disposed of with the aforementioned directions

vi) of sub-section (5) of section 80G or under section 263 or under section 271 or under section 272A or an order passed by him under section 154 amending his order under section 263 or an order passed by a Chief Commissioner or a Director General or a Director under section 272A.” An appeal before the High Court would

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

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 sessed income or returned income for each of the previous years falling within

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX-I,NEW DELHI vs. VATIKA TOWNSHIP P.LTD

Appeals of the assessees are allowed deleting the surcharge levied by the

VI or unabsorbed 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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

36 1996. All the trade bodies60 as well Bureau of Indian Standards are members of its governing council. 54. It was submitted that the revenue had granted exemptions to the assessee society under Section 12A and Section 10(23C)(iv) while issuing various certificates from time to time (from AY 1996-1997 to 2007-2008); therefore, it had accepted that

THE TATA IRON AND STEEL CO.LTD., BIHAR vs. THE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE,PATNA

The appeals are disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs

1) of Rule 8 of the Rules. The Notification consists of two parts. The first part relates to excisable goods manufactured in a workshop within the factory and intended for use in the said factory. The second part relates to use in any other factory of the same manufacturer for repair or maintenance of machinery installed therein. The expression ‘therein

SUNDARESH BHATT vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

vi. It is further submitted that merely because the respondent had filed its claim before the liquidator, it cannot be said that the respondent   had   relinquished   its   rights   over   the   warehoused goods. The claim was filed by the respondent only to realize its dues,   and   hence   cannot   be   viewed   as   a   relinquishment   or abandonment of its rights.  20 In light

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) 2 vs. M/S MAHAGUN REALTORS (P) LTD

The appeal is allowed, in the above terms, without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

vi); (via) (viaa) (viab); 47 (vii); 72A; 72AB, etc. 20 the transferee was in existence, vis-à-vis the transfer to the transferee company); carry forward of loss, depreciation, all bear out that under the Act, (a) the business-including the rights, assets and liabilities of the transferor company do not cease, but continue as that of the transferor company

JT.COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,SURAT vs. SAHELI LEASING & INDUSTRIES LTD

Appeals stand allowed as mentioned hereinabove but with

depreciation, the taxable income of the Assessee was NIL and hence, there was no tax liability. According to Assessee, in such a case no penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) could have been levied. 16. Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, Special Range-2, C.As. @ SLP (C) No. 5241 of 2007 etc…. (contd.) 7 Surat, on the basis of the discussion

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

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

1.—For the purposes of clause (ii), any machinery or plant which was used outside India by any person other than the assessee shall not be regarded as machinery or plant previously used for any purpose, if the following conditions are fulfilled, namely:— CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4822 OF 2022 Page 17 of 36 (a) such machinery or plant

THE INDIAN TUBE COMPANY LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

VI to the Companies Act, 1956 (1) or of 1956 shall not be regarded as a reserve for the purpose of computation of the capital of a company under the provisions of this schedule." Section 217 of the Companies Act, 1956 enjoins the company to attach to every balance sheet laid before a company general meeting, a report

MANSAROVAR COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI

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

36 of 67 situated in Delhi as well as the jurisdiction of the AO in Delhi. The findings shall be referred to hereinbelow. The findings recorded by the AO have been upheld by the CIT(A), which are also against the respective assessees. However, the ITAT reversed the order passed by the CIT(A), which order has been reversed

SHIV RAJ GUPTA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI IV

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

depreciation, reserves etc., a part of it should in all fairness go to the employees.” Also, this Court in S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (2007) 1 SCC 781 held as follows: “36. We agree with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Dalmia Cement (B) Ltd. [(2002) 254 ITR 377 (Del)] that once it is established