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

6 may be the result of using the capital which the assessee has borrowed. Further, the words "actual cost" do not find place in Section 36(1)(iii) of the 1961 Act which otherwise find place in Sections 32, 32A etc of the 1961 Act. The expression "actual cost" is defined in Section 43(1) of the 1961 Act which

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 of the assessee cannot in all circumstances be accepted in view of the bar contained in Section 34. If Section 34 is not satisfied and particulars are not furnished by the assessee his claim for depreciation under Section 32 cannot

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(6

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

6 (2011) 332 ITR 602 7 (2023) 458 ITR 593 8 2011 SCC OnLine Del 5114 37 fee is concerned, it certainly results in creation of an intangible asset. There are two aspects of allowance of 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

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

43(2). According to the learned counsel, in the past in some years when the value of the rupee becomes stronger vis-à-vis US$, the Department had taxed the gains as income. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, when it comes to “income”, the Department says that accrual is enough for taxability and “payment” is irrelevant but when

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

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

43 of 67 management was only in Sikkim and the income had accrued only in Sikkim. 6.1 While reversing the finding of the AO on whether the commission was not earned in Gangtok, though the AO found that the notices were sent to those who had allegedly paid the commission to the assessees and the summons under Section

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 on the assets used for power generation. This additional issue has been raised by the revenue in Civil Appeal No.13771 of 2015 (Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Jindal Steel and Power Ltd.). Revenue has also raised the issue of expenditure in Civil Appeal No.7425 of 2019 (Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Reliance Industries Ltd.). The expenditure claimed

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

6 of the Act and paragraphs 28, 30 & 38 of the EPF Scheme establish that what was payable as contribution by the employer was not only the contribution in respect of its obligation to deposit amounts in the account of the employee, but its contribution as well as the contribution of the employee. Pointedly, Mr. Hemani referred Section

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

depreciation and ITC. 29. Now we come to sub-Section (4) of Section 16. Before the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2022, the sub-section read thus: “16. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. (4) A registered person shall not be entitled to take input tax credit in respect of any invoice or debit note for supply of goods or services or both after

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

The appeals are allowed

6. 49.06 Plans, drawings and designs 7. 97.04 Postage stamps, used or if unused not of current or new issue in the country to which they are destined. 8. 97.05 Metals [Notification No. 107/93-Cus., dated 30.3.1993] The other notification is notification No. 38/94-Cus., 1st March, 1994. It is "General Exemption No. 193B". The relevant part thereof reads as under: "Effective

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

6. For that purpose, we quote hereinbelow Section 32(1)(ii), which reads as follows: “Depreciation. 32.(1) In respect of 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

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 in which the High Court has taken a contrary view against the assessee and where the assessee has come up in appeal. There is thus a divergence of judicial opinion on this question. 3. We may refer to the facts

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

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

6 and 8 of the Carriers Act, 1865 and in, our opinion, they lay down the correct law.” 39. To apply Section 69A of the Act, it is indispensable that the Officer must find that the other valuable article, inter alia, is owned by the assessee. A bailee, who is a common carrier, is not an owner of the goods

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

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

depreciation on the Intellectual Property Rights was rejected by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals). 4 Page 5 JUDGMENT 12. As a result of the appellate order, the Revenue was aggrieved by the deduction granted to the Assessee in respect of legal expenses and so it preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Assessee was aggrieved by the rejection

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) and sub- section (5) of section 80-IB, for the assessment

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 of the Act which deals with profits and gains of business or profession. Though the phrase has been used in certain sections as "business or profession", but nowhere has the phrase been used

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. VIJAY INDUSTRIES vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are allowed

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

43:59 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified J U D G M E N T A.K. SIKRI, J. Leave granted. Delay condoned. 2) In all these appeals issue relates to the interpretation that is to be accorded to the provisions of Section 80HH of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). Section 80HH and other related