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

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

55,25,86,888.00 including interest under Section 234B of the Act. Consequently, penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated by the assessing officer against the assessee. In the assessment order, assessing officer made several disallowances which are not the subject matter of the appeal. 11.4. Assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A), Chennai

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

Appeals are disposed of with the aforementioned directions

55,592/- gross profit of Rs.57,28,980/- giving rate of 64.69% for unit – 1 and on sale of Rs.63,16,392/-, gross profit of Rs.19,12,565/- for Unit-II giving 30.29% has been declared by the assessee. Sales were made both on credit as well as cash basis. Confirmed copy of account of the creditors has been produced

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

depreciation under Section 32(2) of the Act for the Assessment Years 1996-1997, 1997-1998 and 1999-2000. FACTS: 2. Relevant facts for adjudication of the appeals are set out hereinunder: a. Appellant is a non-resident company incorporated in France and is engaged in oil drilling activities. In 1983, the appellant was awarded a 10-year contract

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

VATSALA SHENOY vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

55(2) which was inserted with effect from April 01, 2002 and deals with 'cost of acquisition' for the purposes of Sections 48 and 49 stipulating that insofar as capital asset in relation to goodwill of a business is concerned, cost of acquisition would be the cost at which it was purchased from the previous owner. According to him, this

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

2) has no application. We may, therefore, refer to sub-rule (1A) along with the provisos thereto which read as under: (1A) The allowance under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 32 of the Act in respect of depreciation of assets acquired on or after 1st day of April, 1997 shall be calculated at the percentage specified

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

M/S. MANGALAM PUBLICATIONS, KOTTAYAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM

Bench: This Court & On Leave Being Granted, Civil Appeals Have Been Registered. 3.

55,117.00) from 1985 to 1993, it was considered necessary to reassess the income of the assessee as well as that of the partners for the assessment years 1988-1989 to 1993-1994. After obtaining the approval of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Trivandrum, notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee

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

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

2) Mere activity by the company in a place does not create residence, with the result that the company may be residing in one place and doing a great deal of business in another. (3) The central management and control of a company may be divided and it may keep house and do business in more than one place

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

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

55. In Mysore Minerals Ltd. M.G. Road, Bangalore v. Commissioners of Income Tax, Karnataka, Bangalore16 the assessee company though allotted houses by delivery of possession by the Housing Board, an actual deed of conveyance had not been executed in its favour. The houses so allotted were for the use of its staff. Assessee claimed depreciation under Section

SUNDARESH BHATT vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

depreciation. From the viewpoint of creditors, a good realisation can generally be obtained if the firm is sold as a going concern. Hence, when delays induce liquidation, there is value destruction. Further, even in liquidation, the realisation is lower when there are delays. Hence, delays cause value destruction. Thus, achieving a high recovery rate is primarily about identifying and combating

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

55 of the Schedule to the Act; (iv) fabrics of cotton or man-made fibres falling within heading Nos.58.01, 58.02, 58.06 (other than goods falling within sub- heading No.5806.20) 60.01 or 60.02 (other than goods falling within sub-heading No.6002.10) of the Schedule to the Act. (2) The manufacturer of the final products shall take credit under sub-rule

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

The appeals are allowed

55. The penalties shall be paid forthwith." Being aggrieved by the Order in Original passed by the Commissioner of Customs, five appeals came to be registered before CEGAT. One appeal was preferred by the Company against the decision of the Commissioner holding that the goods were liable to payment of custom duty and not covered by Chapter Heading

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

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

Sections mentioned above. Feeling aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) who passed an order on 15th October, 1998. The appeal was allowed in part inasmuch as it was held that the Assessee was entitled to a deduction towards legal expenses. However, the claim of the Assessee regarding deduction or depreciation on the Intellectual

ASSTT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX I NEW DELHI vs. M/S E FUNDS IT SOLUTION INC

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

55 2004 also issued by CBDT. This is the key question which arises for determination in these civil appeals. (at page 25) xxx xxx xxx 35. The object behind enactment of transfer pricing regulations is to prevent shifting of profits outside India. Under Article 7(2) not all profits of MSCo would be taxable in India but only those which

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, TAMIL NADU vs. M/S. SOUTHERN STRUCTURALS LTD

55,833 + 8,63,891). The Railways supplied free raw material worth Rs.7 lac per wagon. The respondent paid central excise duty @ 15% ad valorem and cleared 21 wagons to their customer till 16th July 1998. It was also noticed that the respondent has adjusted the value mentioned C.A.No.180/03 .... (contd.) - 2 - in the invoices against 50% of the advance

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VI vs. VIRTUAL SOFT SYSTEMS LTD

The appeal is hereby dismissed leaving parties to bear their own cost

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

55 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified CIVIL APPEAL Nos.4366-4367 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) NOs. 22197-22198 OF 2013) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4368 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) NO. 8586 OF 2014) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4370 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) NO. 16153 OF 2014) CIVIL APPEAL