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

depreciation under Section 32(1)(i), made year after year, should not, in any event, exceed the actual cost of the assets to the assessee [See: Section 34(2)(i)]. The definition of “actual cost” is to be found in Section 43

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

43-A. The argument that since Section 32 provides for depreciation it has to be allowed in computing the income

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

depreciation [Sections 32 and 43(1)], and also as regards capital assets for scientific research [Section 35(1)(iv)] and also

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. 14.13. Summing up his arguments, Mr. Dwarakanath asserts that firstly, non-compete fee is not a revenue expenditure but a capital expenditure. Secondly, even though it is a capital expenditure leading to accrual of intangible asset, it is not eligible for deduction because it is not ‘owned’ and ‘used’ by the assessee for the purpose of its business

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

43(b) on the other. If one goes by the legislative history of these provisions, what is discernible is that Parliament’s endeavour in introducing Section 43B [which opens with its non-obstante clause] was to primarily ensure that deductions otherwise permissible and hitherto claimed on mercantile basis, were expressly conditioned, in certain cases upon payment. In other words

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

The appeals are allowed

depreciation on the said purchase? The High Court noted that sub- section (3) of Section 43 expressly declared that "book

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

depreciation under Appendix-1 instead of Appendix-1A but such option has to be exercised before the due date for furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of Section 139 of the Act. 43

M/S KARNATAKA SMALL S.INDT.DEV.COR.LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,BANGALORE

depreciation claimed by it for the relevant previous year, under the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 115-J read with sections 32-A and 32-A (3)(iii). Reliance was placed on section 43

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HYD. vs. M/S. P.J. CHEMICALS LTD

In the result, we affirm the judgments of the High Courts which have

Section 43(1) of the Act for purpose of calculation of depreciation etc. 2. The second batch consists of matters

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

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

depreciation on plant) as has been done by the Tribunal, the Assessee would be quite satisfied. Unfortunately, the alternative aspect of the Assessee’s case was not looked into by the High Court. 29. Therefore, now the question to be answered is whether the Assessee is entitled to any benefit under Section 32 of the Act read with Section 43

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

depreciation of buildings, machinery, plant or furniture owned by the assessee and used for the purposes of the business or profession, the following deductions shall, subject to the provisions of section 34, be allowed- (i) [Omitted]; (ii) in the case of any block of assets, such percentage on the written down value thereof as may be prescribed: Provided that where

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

depreciation. In our opinion Barendra Prasad Ray’s case (supra) has no application in the present case. 17. Part D consists of Sections 28 to 43

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. M/S. HOOGHLY MILLS CO. LTD

The appeal is allowed

depreciation only on these items. However, in the present case, the agreement itself mentioned the value of the building, plant and machinery. Hence it is not necessary to remit the matter to the tribunal in this case. No doubt, the word ‘plant’ had been given the deeming meaning vide Section 43

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

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

43 question of a common approach to situations where search parties come across items of jewellery, has been examined by the Board and following guidelines are issued for strict compliance:- (i) In the case of a wealth-tax assessee, gold jewellery and ornaments found in excess of the gross weight declared in the wealth-tax return only need be seized

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(CENTRAL) vs. M/S. GWALIOR RAYON SILK MFG.(WVG.)CO.LTD

The appeal is partly allowed

depreciation setting at rest the variable rates claimed by the assessee. Rules validly made have the same force as the sections in the Act. [1029 C] 11. The inclusive definition of ‘building’ to include roads etc. enlarges the scope of Section 32 and does not whittle down its effect. [1029 D] C.I.T. v. Coromandel Fertilsers

HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD. vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,DELHI

The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs

depreciation was allowable even on notional increase in the cost of the asset on account of exchange rate fluctuation and despite the fact that the additional liability resulting from the said fluctuation had not been paid by the assessee. It was held that the word "paid" in section 43

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

43,94,90,393/-. Even as per reduction of 25% depreciation the return of loss income of the assessee remained. In claiming 100% depreciation the assessee claims that there was no intention to evade tax and the said claim was only a bonafide mistake. As noted above by the Finance Act, 1993 Section

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

depreciation under section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), or as revenue expenditure under any other