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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

56:35 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified 2 J U D G M E N T S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. 1. Leave granted. Berger Paints India Ltd. v Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-IV & Anr.1 was the lead matter while hearing this batch of appeals. However, the parties agreed to treat Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v Commissioner of Income

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

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

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

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

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

1) of Rule 5 read with Appendix-I instead of the depreciation specified in Appendix-1A in terms of sub-rule (1A) of Rule 5 which the assessee has done. If that be the position, we find no merit in the question proposed by the revenue. The same is therefore answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue

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

Appeals are disposed of with the aforementioned directions

depreciation was not causing any prejudice to the interest of Revenue at least in the year under consideration and the apprehension of the learned CIT about such prejudice which may be caused to the Revenue in the subsequent years was based on 29 assumptions and surmises depending on ultimate eventualities like the one happened in the present case when

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

depreciation as on April 1998 remained intact and was not written off or obliterated by computation of income of 30 per cent of the book profit under section 115-J. Mr. Dhruv Mehta, learned counsel for another appellant/assessee has adopted these arguments and has further submitted that the fiction of the assessable income under section 115-J could

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

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

depreciation under sub-section (2) of section 32 shall not be set off against the undisclosed income determined in the block assessment under this Chapter, but may be carried forward for being set off in the regular assessments. Civil Appeal No.________ of 2014 & connected matters Page 17 of 57 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 540 of 2009) Page

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

1 Section 32 was amended by Finance Act, 2001 and Explanation 5 was added to nullify the effect of Mahendra Mills case. 2 (2000) 243 ITR 56 4 2) The Assessment Years involved in this appeal are 1997-98 to 2000-01. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture of master batches and compounds. For this purpose

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 12AA(1) of the IT Act, on 18.05.1979 and is engaged in the activity of promotion of the export of all kind of ready-made garments, knitwear, and garments made of leather, jute and hemp. It does not per se engage in any activity for profit, and its mandate is to ensure that Indian apparel manufacturers, are given forums

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

Appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA

56,89,83,608/­).  2.4 With   a   view   to   restructure   and   consolidate   their businesses,   and   enable   better   realisation   of   the potential   of   their   businesses,   which   would   yield beneficial   results,   and   enhanced   value   creation   for their   shareholders,   better   security   to   their   creditors and   employees,   the   Appellants   (also   referred   to   as “Transferee Companies” or “Amalgamated Companies”) entered into 4 interconnected Schemes

SUNDARESH BHATT vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

1: Rational & Design (November 2015), available at , last accessed 06-07-2022. Page 28 of 59 Civil Appeal No.7722 of 2021 and Civil Appeal No.7731 of 2021 31. In the Fifth Report of the Insolvency Law Committee, May, 2022 published by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India29, while examining whether the role

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

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

1)(f) of the Constitution. No one denies that an evacuee from Pakistan has a residual right in the property that he left in Pakistan. But the real question is, can that right be considered as ownership within the meaning of Section 9 of the Act. As mentioned earlier that section seeks to bring to tax income of the property

JT. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, GUJARAT vs. UNITED PHOSPHOROUS LTD., GUJARAT

Appeal is partly allowed with no order as to cost

56 in which it has been held that the assessee has an option to claim depreciation. However, Section 34(1

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

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

56 of 67 Kolah says that the two powers-of-attorney go to show that whatever legal or juridical control and management the company might have had, in fact the actual management was exercised by the two managers in Ceylon. In our opinion this is not a case where the company did nothing with regard to the actual management

VATSALA SHENOY vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Section 583(4)(a) thereof. The said petition was registered as Company Petition No. 1 of 1988. Significantly, though the firm stood dissolved on December 06, 1987, and thereafter Company Petition No. 1 of 1988 for the winding up proceedings after dissolution was filed in the High Court, the business of the partnership firm continued because of the interim order

NAVIN JINDAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

1)(b) of the Act, it is further stipulated that where the capital gain arises from the transfer of a long-term capital asset, then, in addition to the expenditure incurred in connection with the transfer and the cost of acquisition of the asset, a further deduction, as specified in Section 48(2) of the Act, which is similar