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

42. From a conjoint reading of Rules 5(1) and (1A) of the Rules read with Appendix-1 and Appendix-1A, it is evident that while sub- rule (1) provides for allowance of depreciation in respect of any block of assets in terms of the second column of the table in Appendix 1, sub-rule (1A) enables an assessee

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

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

42 88. In this connection, the following statement made by the Minister of Finance in the Lok Sabha on 18th April, 1964 in reply to some criticism that the provisions of this section might result in hardship to persons whose ornaments or jewellery were given to them by their forefathers, have to be borne in mind: “Often times, people convert

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

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

MCORP GLOBAL PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD

Accordingly, the civil appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed with no order as to costs

Bench: Coming To The Facts, The Following Is The Relationship Between The Parties: - M/S Glass & Ceramic Decorators Was The Manufacturer Of Soft Drink Bottles. - Assessee Was The ‘Lessor’. - M/S Coolade Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Was The ‘Lessee’. 4. During The Relevant Assessment Year, The Assessee Carried On The Business Of Trading In Lamination Machines & Binding & Punching Machines. In Addition, It Was Also Engaged In The Leasing Business. During The Year In Question, The Assessee Had Bought 5,46,000 Soft Drink Bottles From M/S Glass & Ceramic Decorators Worth Rs. 19,54,953/-. The Bottles Were Directly Supplied To M/S Coolade Beverages Pvt. Ltd. (“M/S Coolade” For Short) In Terms Of Lease Dated 15.2.1991. Vide Assessment Order Dated 28.3.1994, The Ao Found That M/S Coolade Had Received Only 42,000 Bottles Out Of The Total Of 2

depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“1961 Act” for short) in respect of two separate transactions dated 15.2.1991 and 15.3.1991. The impugned judgment has been rendered in respect of Assessment Year 1991-92 (corresponding to the previous year ending 31.3.1991). (A) Facts Regarding Lease dated 15.2.1991 (Transaction No. I): 3. Before coming

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

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

depreciation of— (i) buildings, machinery, plant or furniture, being tangible assets; (ii) know-how, patents, copyrights, trade marks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, being intangible assets acquired on or after the 1st day of April, 1998, owned, wholly or partly, by the assessee and used for the purposes of the business or profession

RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD JAIPUR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (ASSESSMENT)

In the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI

depreciation the income of the assessee remained to be in loss to Rs.3,43,94,90,393/-. The assessee prayed for quashing the demand of additional tax. The application filed under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was rejected by the Assessing Officer on 28.02.1992. The revision petition under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 came

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 Balance Under- Assessment 1990-91 90079199 4329815 85749384 6324989 1991-92 82124877 6222432 75902441 5598817 1992-93 72294757 3575079 68719678 5068892 Total under-assessment 16992728 42 In view of the above, I have reason to believe that by reason of omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL vs. DY.COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX & ANR.ETC.ETC

Appeals are allowed accordingly

Section) and having noticed diametrically opposite views expressed in two decisions of the Tribunal - one reported in 39 I.T.D. 432 Butwelded Tools (P) Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax and the opposite decision rendered by the Hyderabad Bench in V.V. Trans Investment (P) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer (42 ITD 242) we are of the opinion in order

VATSALA SHENOY vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

depreciable assets. For the purposes of calculation/ computation, figures were taken from Table II incorporated in the Assessment Order itself mentioning the market value of these assets. This Table II reads as under: S.No. Asset %age Sales/Market Value Amount in assessee's case 1. Land as per H.S. Seshagiri – Registered Valuer

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

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

42 of 67 not open for the assessees to make a grievance with respect to non-service of the notice; 2) On the aspect relating to the control and management of the affairs, the ITAT recorded the findings as under: i) It is important to highlight that the ITAT had neither reserved nor found the findings

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

depreciation). Each of these deductions, has its contours, depending upon the expressions used, and the conditions that are to be met. It is therefore necessary to bear in mind that specific enumeration of deductions, dependent upon fulfilment of particular conditions, would qualify as allowable deductions: failure by the assessee to comply with those conditions, would render the claim vulnerable

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD NO.16(2) vs. M/S TECHSPAN INDIA PRIVATE LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. TECHSPAN INDIA LTD.) THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIR

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL

42 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified (a) M/s TechSpan India Private Ltd.-the Respondent is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of development and export of computer softwares and human resource services. It is also relevant to mention here that the Respondent-Company is also eligible for deduction under Section

NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO

depreciation allowance  or  any other allowance under this Act has been computed. (ca) where a return of income has not been furnished by the assessee or a return of income has been furnished by him and on the basis of information or document received   from   the   prescribed   income­tax   authority, under sub­section (2) of section 133C, it is noticed

M/S M.S.SHOES EAST LTD. vs. COMMR.OF CUSTOMS,NEW DELHI

depreciation cannot be taken into account, despite the fact that while the Bill of Entry of the car was presented in 1996, the clearance was given on 28.3.2005. The submission of the appellant that there was delay of nine years in releasing the car from the date of import has in our opinion no relevance at all as the value

SREE AYYANAR SPINNING & WEAVING M.LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, the Civil Appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed with no order

42,98,019/- and on scrutiny of the said computation and the balance-sheet along with the return the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax reworked the computation as indicated at page 63 of Volume II in this case. Suffice it to state that the total profit was reworked at Rs.1,53,07,444/-. Thirty per cen t thereof was reworked

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

depreciation in investments in the Balance Sheet under “Current Liabilities and Provisions” and that such provision for each year shall be debited to P&L Account so that a true and correct figure of “Net Profit” gets reflected in the financial accounts of the company. The effect of such Disclosure is to increase the current liabilities by showing the provision