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 in respect of intangible assets. Firstly, it should fall within one of the enumerated categories i.e. know-how, patents, copyrights, trade marks, licenses, franchises or ‘any other business or commercial rights of similar nature’; secondly, it should be ‘owned’, either wholly or partly, by the assessee and should be ‘used’ for the purpose of its business or profession

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

Section, it has been held in Mahendra Mills case that whether to claim depreciation or not is the option of the assessees and it cannot be thrusted upon the assessees. Following passage from the said judgment was relied upon by the learned senior counsel: “40

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

depreciation @ 40% under Section 32(1)(iv) of the Act amounting to Rs.43,505/- on the actual cost of the building

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

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

40 obvious that someone else is the owner, a person found in possession, which is illegal, can be found to be the owner under Section 69A. The question would arise pointedly, as to, when a common carrier refuses to deliver the consignment and continues to possess it contrary to contract and law and converts it into his use and presumably

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

40. Rule 5 provides for the method of calculation of depreciation allowed under Section 32 (1) of the Act. It says

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

40 of 91 section (1) of Section 37 till the due date for furnishing the details under sub-section (1) of said section for the month of March, 2019. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (4), in respect of an invoice or debit note for supply of goods or services or both pertaining to the Financial Years

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

40- 43B, are concerned with and enact different conditions, that the tax adjudicator has to enforce, and the assessee has to comply with, to secure a valid deduction. 32. The scheme of the provisions relating to deductions, such as Sections 32- 37, on the other hand, deal primarily with business, commercial or professional expenditure, under various heads (including 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

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS (GENERAL), N. DELHI vs. GUJARAT PERSTORP ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeals are allowed

40, 41, 44, 47, 48 and 49. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts goods specified in column (3) of the Table hereto annexed, and falling within Chapter

M/S. VIKRAM CEMENT vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE

40 of 1978); (ii) the additional duty of excise under section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 (58 of 1957); and (iii) the additional duty under section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, equivalent to the duty of excise specified under clauses (i) and (ii) above shall be utilized only towards payment

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

40 per dollar as on 31.3.2000, thus, increasing the liability of the assessee by Rs.500. According to the learned counsel, the assessee was entitled therefore to deduction under Section 37(1) for such enhanced liability. Similarly, if the dollar rate had reduced from Rs. 35 to Rs. 32 per dollar, then the assessee’s liability would stand reduced

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

depreciation in respect of leasing vehicles from 40% to 20%. Rs. 10,28,462.00 (iii) Unexplained share application money added back as unexplained cash credits under Section

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

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

Section 32 (1) of the Act. Therefore, the assessee fulfills even the requirements for a claim of a higher rate of depreciation, and hence is entitled to the same. 31. In this regard, we endorse the following observations of the Tribunal, which clinch the issue in favour of the assessee. “15. The CBDT vide Circular No. 652, dated

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

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN vs. M/S ENRON OIL & GAS INDIA LTD

Bench: Cit(A), Who After Analyzing The Psc Held That Each Co-Venturer In This Case Had Made Contribution At A Certain Rate Whereas The Expenditure Incurred Out Of The Said Contribution Stood Converted On The Basis Of The Previous 2

40%. EOGIL was designated as the Operator under the said PSC. 3. Vide Notification No. 9997 dated 8.3.1996 under Section 293A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“1961 Act”), each co-venturer was liable to be assessed for his own share of income. They were not to be treated as an AOP. 4. EOGIL filed his return of income

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

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 the block period

M/S. MANGALAM PUBLICATIONS, KOTTAYAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM

Bench: This Court & On Leave Being Granted, Civil Appeals Have Been Registered. 3.

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in Sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year). 32 28.4. Thus, Section 147 as it stood at the relevant point of time provides that if the assessing officer has reason to believe that any income

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

depreciation, renewals, etc. or providing for any known liability. Under Part – I of Schedule – VI, ‘reserve’ can be made in respect of capital reserves, capital redemption, share premium, etc. 6. Provision cannot be used to declare dividend, etc. Reserves can be utilized to pay dividends/ bonus, unless there is a statutory bar. Lastly, on the question of adding back