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

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE vs. DAI ICHI KARKARIA LTD

The appeals are dismissed

Section 4(1)(b) of the Act read with Rule 6 of the Valuation Rules? Learned counsel for the respondents drew our attention to the judgment of this Court in Challapalli Sugars Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, A.P., [1975 (98) ITR 167]. The Court was concerned with written down value. The written down value had to be taken into

BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX

depreciation of any assets in the guest house. However, a guest house maintained as holiday home in the circumstances indicated have been excluded from the purview of Sub- section (4

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

4) of Section 9. Further conditions for the use of ITC are prescribed by sub-section (2) of Section 16. Civil Appeal No.2948 of 2023 etc. Page 42 of 91 28. Sub-section (3) of Section 16 is of some relevance as it provides that if a registered person has claimed 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

depreciation under Section 32. 4) After the Full Bench answered the reference in the aforesaid manner, the appeal of the assessee

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

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

4. All the appeals are by the revenue assailing orders of various high courts dismissing its appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The core and common issue raised in all the appeals is the recomputation of deduction under Section 80 IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the assessing officer which was set aside

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

4 5.1. Corollary to the above question is whether such expenditure, if considered to be an expenditure of capital nature, is entitled to depreciation under Section

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

4 to 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

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

4. In the Lead Matter, the assessee who is the manufacturer of soft drinks, purchased bottles and crates, each item of which costed less than Rs. 5,000/- and, therefore, was entitled to and allowed 100% depreciation on the cost of the said bottles and crates, in the year in which they were acquired, under the proviso to Section

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

The appeals are allowed and the

4 of 12 section (2) of Section 32 or sub-section (3) of Section 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

M/S. DYNAMIC ORTHOPEDICS PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN

depreciation to be deducted in pursuance of clause (k) of sub-section (4) of section 349 shall be the amount

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE

The appeal is allowed

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

depreciation in respect of leased assets; the quantum 4 of allowable deduction under Section 80M and exemption under Section 10(15) and 10(23G); and depreciation

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,DIBRUGARH vs. DOOM DOOMA INDIA LTD

Section 32(1)(ii)]. This is known as "written-down value" method. Both these methods seek to ensure that the total depreciation allowance(s) granted, year after year, does not exceed 100 per cent, of the original cost of the asset. In the straight-line method, the entire depreciation is written off sooner than in the 4

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

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

4. ….It is perfectly true that these two managers do all the business of the company in Ceylon and in doing that business naturally a large amount of discretion is given to them and a considerable amount of authority. But the mere doing of business does not constitute these managers the controlling and directing power. Their power-of-attorney

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SHIMLA vs. M/S AARHAM SOFTRONICS

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

4) of Section 80-IB as well. It would mean that total deduction under Section 80-IB as well as 80-IC is for a period of 10 years. 19.Having examined the scheme in the aforesaid manner, we arrive at the conclusion that the definition of ‘initial assessment year’ contained in clause (v) of sub-section (8) of Section

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

depreciation on the ground that the appellant was not carrying on any business 3 Hereinafter, ‘Department’. 4 Hereinafter, ‘AO’. Page 4 of 13 during the relevant assessment years. The findings of the AO were upheld by CIT (Appeals). FINDINGS OF THE ITAT: 4. ITAT, however, reversed the findings of the CIT (Appeals), holding a temporary lull in business for whatever

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

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

Section 32 of the Act also contemplates ownership of the asset as a condition for claiming the benefit of depreciation. The Court, inter alia, held as follows: “4