VODAFONE IDEA LTD(EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 26 (2)

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent have pointed out that in a number of judgments several High Courts have consistently taken the view that once regular assessment proceedings have commenced under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, it is a limitation on the jurisdiction of the assessing officer to commence proceedings under Section 143(1

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

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

5.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of this section shall not apply and shall be deemed never to have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which the provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies.” 6. The time limit

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

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

5) is required only if the assessee claims the deduction under Section 10B. This certificate only certifies the profit/loss of Section 10B unit and the amount of deduction under Section 10B (1), if any. The certificate, if already submitted, becomes irrelevant if the claim is withdrawn under Section 10B. In any event, the contents of this certificate regarding profit/loss

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

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

depreciation and allowances are dealt with in Section 32. Therefore, Parliament has used the expression “any expenditure” in Section 37 to cover both. Therefore, the expression “expenditure” as used in Section 37 may, in 11 the circumstances of a particular case, cover an amount which is really a “loss” even though the said amount has not gone out from

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

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

5. Under Clause 7(1)(a) of Part – III of Schedule VI of Companies Act, 1956 – provision, inter alia, is to provide for depreciation, renewals or diminution in value of assets or to provide for any taxation. Under Clause 7(1)(b) of Part – III of Schedule – VI of Companies Act, 1956 – reserve does not include any amount written

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

1 | P a g e the issue of the extent of deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter “the Tribunal”), upheld the decision of the Appellate Authority on the issue of deduction under Section 80-IA. The High Court refused to interfere with the Tribunal’s order as far as the issue

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS PVT.LTD

The appeal is allowed without

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): Provided that where an assessment under sub- section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

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

depreciation as in sub-Paragraph (vii) above, the Appellant was assessed at a loss of Rs. 11,02,255.00 (Rs. 69,15,757.00) \026 Rs. 80,18,012.00 = - Rs. 11,02,255.00) In this manner, the carry-forward loss of Rs. 15,53,487.72 originally claimed by the appellant was reduced to Rs. 11,02,225.00. By order dated

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

5 of 6 only. In sub-clause (ii) the legislature has specifically extended the benefit of depreciation to the assessees carrying on "business" as well as "profession" whereas in sub-section (iv), the legislature has restricted the benefit to the asseessees carrying on "business" only. 14. This Court rendered the decision in Barendra Prasad Ray’s case (supra

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

Depreciation is not there in Section 36(1)(iii). That is why the legislature has used the words "unless the context otherwise requires". Hence, Explanation 8 has no relevancy to Section 36(1)(iii). It has relevancy to the aforementioned enumerated sections. Therefore, in our view Explanation 8 has no application to the facts of the present case. http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,SIMLA vs. M/S GREEN WORLD CORPORATION

Appeals are disposed of with the aforementioned directions

1) on non-fulfillment of pre-requisite conditions for deduction under Section 80-IA/80-IB – it was held that the activities of the assessee do not amount to manufacturing; (2) little consumption of electricity and thus manufacturing is without the aid of 25 power; (3) non-employment of requisite workers in manufacturing process; (4) non-fulfillment of the condition

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

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 is concerned, that was not mentioned therein. Thus, according to him, it is these two sub-sections which contained special provisions and except that, for computing the profits and gains of the business, Sections 30 to 43D had to be applied which would embrace Section 32 as well. 12 8) Counsel appearing in other appeals for the assessees made