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

depreciation and allowances are dealt with in Section 32. Therefore, Parliament has used the expression “any expenditure” in Section 37

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

37,12,20,853.00. Initially the return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act but subsequently the case was selected for scrutiny during which proceedings, assessee filed a revised 13 return increasing its loss. It also submitted a note on the admissibility of depreciation

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

37:23 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified 2 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 534 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 537 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 538 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 543 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 544 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 541 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 542 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 546 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL

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

depreciation in the value of the assets and, consequently, it is deductible under Section 37(1) of the IT Act. In this

PRIDE FORAMER S.A. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

37(1) read with Section 71 of the Act, and carry forward unabsorbed depreciation of previous years under Section 32(2) of the Act?’ 5 Vide

OIL & NATURAL GAS CORP. LTD. TR. M.D. vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN

The appeals are allowed; the impugned orders are

37(1) of the Act in respect of loans used in revenue account, and also took into consideration the similar difference in foreign exchange on capital account loans as an increased liability under Section 43A of the Act for the purposes of depreciation

DY. COMMNR., INCOME TAX, COCHIN vs. M/S. S.T.N. TEXTILE LTD

37 of the Act, be considered by the Tribunal. It accordingly, remitted the matter to the Tribunal for fresh disposal of the matter on the aforesaid two questions. The facts of the case may be briefly noticed :- The S.T.N. (Respondent herein) is a company running a textile mill. We are concerned with the assessment year 1991- 1992. The assessee claimed

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

37. In view of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 7, a supply of services such as sale, transfer, licence, rental or lease made for consideration is a supply. Whether the activities or transactions covered by sub-section (1) of Section 7 constitute Civil Appeal No.2948 of 2023 etc. Page 54 of 91 a supply

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

37 gains of the eligible business, which is necessary for quantifying the deduction under Section 80-IA, the assessee had recorded in its books of accounts that it had supplied power to its industrial units at the rate of Rs. 3.72 per unit which rate is disputed by the revenue as not being the market value of electricity. 19. While

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

37 which expressly excludes an expense of a capital nature. The legislature has, therefore, made no distinction in Section 36(1)(iii) between "capital borrowed for a revenue purpose" and "capital borrowed for a capital purpose". An assessee is entitled to claim interest paid on borrowed capital provided that capital is used for business purpose irrespective of what http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Sections 32- 37, on the other hand, deal primarily with business, commercial or professional expenditure, under various heads (including depreciation

M/S LIBERTY INDIA vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,KARNAL

37(2)(xvia) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and under Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995. 8. On the nature of DEPB it was submitted that the amount of DEPB was granted under Exim-Policy issued in terms of powers conferred under Section

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

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

depreciation under Section 32. 57. This Court is called upon to decide the ambit of the word ‘owner’ in section 69A in the facts before us. This Court agrees with the High Court that the concept of ‘owner’ cannot be divorced from the context in which the expression is employed. In the case of Jodha Mal (supra), the property undoubtedly

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

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

Section 37 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ‘Act’) towards legal expenses incurred. The Assessee also claimed depreciation

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

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

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

depreciation in respect of such machinery or plant has been allowed or is allowable under the provisions of this Act in computing the total income of any person for any period prior to the date of the installation of the machinery or plant by the assessee. Explanation 2.—Where in the case of an industrial undertaking, any machinery or plant

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

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