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 as deduction subject to the provisions of Section 34. Section 34 provides that deduction under Section 32 shall be allowed only if prescribed particulars have been furnished. We have seen Rule 5

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III, BANGALORE vs. M/S WIPRO LIMITED

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

Section 139(5) can be filed only if there is an omission or a wrong statement. That in the aforesaid case, the assessee in the original return filed the P&L account containing provision for depreciation

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I vs. M/S RELIANCE ENERGY LTD (FORMERLY BSES LTD.) THROUGH ITS M.D

The Appeal is dismissed qua the issue of the extent of deduction under

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

depreciation. 2 | P a g e The Assessing Officer considered the revised claim of the Assessee under Section 80-IA and determined the amount eligible for deduction under Section 80-IA at Rs. 492,78,60,973/- against the Assessee’s claim of Rs. 546,26,01,224/-. However, the Assessing Officer stated in the assessment order that the actual

M/S. SYNCO INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. ASSESSING OFFICER,INCOME TAX MUMBAI &ANR

5) of Section 80B, for the purpose of Chapter VI-A, the gross total income must be determined by setting off, against the income, the business losses of the earlier years as required by Section 72, before allowing deduction u/s. 80-P. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the deduction must first be allowed under Section

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

Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Based on the aforesaid decision, he submits that depreciation is allowable on 5

M/S DALMIA POWER LTD. vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA

depreciation etc. 5.   The counsel appearing for the Department relied on Section 139(5) and 119(2)(b) of the Income

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

depreciation to the extent specified in section 350. ...5/- - 5 - Ascertainment of depreciation. 350. The amount of depreciation to be deducted

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

depreciation for such financial year or part of such financial year falling within the relevant previous year. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “book profit” means the net profit as shown in the profit and loss account for the relevant previous year prepared under sub-section (2), as increased by— 5

M/S LIBERTY INDIA vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,KARNAL

5) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, the profits and gains of an eligible business to which the provisions of sub-section (1) apply shall, for the purposes of determining the quantum of deduction under that sub-section for the assessment year immediately succeeding the initial assessment year or any subsequent assessment year, be computed

SUNDARESH BHATT vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

5 and much stress has been laid on the observations of time value in the following terms28 : “5.5 A time-bound, efficient Liquidation Liquidation is the state the entity enters at the end of an IRP, where neither creditors nor debtors can find a commonly agreeable solution by which to keep the entity as a going concern. In India

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX-I,NEW DELHI vs. VATIKA TOWNSHIP P.LTD

Appeals of the assessees are allowed deleting the surcharge levied by the

5 of 57 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 540 of 2009) Page 6 JUDGMENT provisions of Section 113 of the Act as inserted by the Finance Act, 1995 and clarified by the Board Circular No.717 dated 14.08.1995, surcharge was leviable on the income assessed. According to the CIT the charging provision was Section 4 of the Act which

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

5. Was the Department entitled to tax the aforestated sum under Section 41(1) is the question which we have to decide in these civil appeals? 6. For that purpose, we quote hereinbelow Section 32(1)(ii), which reads as follows: “Depreciation

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 provided in Section 32 (1) under sub- rule (1) of Rule 5 read with Appendix-I instead of the depreciation

M/S. SARAF EXPORTS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR - III

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

5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (22 of 1992); XXXXXXXX” “80-IB. Deduction in respect of profits and gains from certain industrial undertakings other than infrastructure development undertakings.—(1) Where the gross total income of an assessee includes any profits and gains derived from any business referred to in sub-sections

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) referred to hereinabove. Inasmuch as, doubts still remained regarding the nature of accommodation used as a guest house by the companies, Sub-section (5

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

depreciation of previous years under Section 32(2) of the Act?’ 5 Vide order dated 13.10.2008 in SLP(C) No. 4510 of 2008. Page

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

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

Section 43(6) to mean – (a) in the case of assets acquired in the previous year, the actual cost to the assessee; (b) in the case of assets acquired before the previous year, the actual cost to the assessee less all depreciation(s) actually allowed under the 1961 Act. 5