M/S. TECHNO SHARES & STOCKS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV

Section 147 was the claim of depreciation by the assessee on BSE membership card amounting to Rs. 23,65,000/-. The claim

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(CENTRAL) vs. M/S. GWALIOR RAYON SILK MFG.(WVG.)CO.LTD

The appeal is partly allowed

Section 32 provides depreciation of capital assets in respect of buildings, machinery, plant or furniture. [1027 E] C.I.T. v. Taj Mahal Hotel, [1971] 82 ITR 44; Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors. v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., JT (1990) 4 SC 533 and C.I.T. v. Ram Gopal Mills Ltd., 4 ITR 280, referred to. 8. Depreciation allowance is in respect

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

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

depreciation under Section 32. 57. This Court is called upon to decide the ambit of the word ‘owner’ in section 69A in the facts before us. This Court agrees with the High Court that the concept of ‘owner’ cannot be divorced from the context in which the expression is employed. In the case of Jodha Mal (supra), the property undoubtedly

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

65. Learned counsel also submitted that the assessee carries on R&D work which enables educational institutions with Information and Communication Technology infrastructure for making education reach the public at large solely for charitable purpose and further reliance was placed upon ICAI Accounting Research Foundation v. DGIT(E)70, Bureau of Indian Standards v. DGIT(E)71 and GS1 India

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

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

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

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). 32 28.4. Thus, Section 147 as it stood at the relevant point of time provides that if the assessing officer has reason to believe that any income

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

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

depreciation allowance” in Section 147 after the conditions for reassessment are satisfied, is only relatable to the preceding expression in clauses (a) and (b) viz., “escaped assessment”. The term “escaped assessment” includes both “non-assessment” as well as “under assessment”. Income is said to have “escaped assessment” within the meaning of this section when it has not been charged

M/S.SIV INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. COMMNR.OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS

65 of 1951), and the rules made under that Act." Under the relevant import policy the 100% Export Oriented Unit Scheme (EOU) envisages an industrial unit offering for export its entire production, excluding rejects or items otherwise specifically permitted to be supplied to the Domestic Tariff Area. Industrial units approved by the Board of Approvals (BOA) set up for this

SHIV RAJ GUPTA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI IV

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

65 ITR 381 : (AIR 1967 SC 1435)] in applying the test of commercial expediency for determining whether an expenditure was wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of the business, reasonableness of the expenditure has to be adjudged from the point of view of the businessman and not of the Income Tax Department. It is, of course, open

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 11 (1) BANGALORE vs. M/S ACE MULTI AXES SYSTEMS LTD

Appeals are disposed of in the same terms

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL

section 11B of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 (65 of 1951).” 5. Before we consider the issue of correct interpretation of the above provision, it may be necessary to note the observations of the statutory authorities and the High Court on the issue. 6. The assessment order dated 14th December, 2009, disallowing the deduction is as follows

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. UNITED PROVINCES ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO

In the result, appeal is allowed

depreciable assets as has been done by the I.T.O. He submitted that balancing charge has to be calculated with respect of each individual asset. In support of his contention, he referred to the decision of this Court in C.I.T., Gujarat vs. Artex Manufacturing Co., http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page

KILLICK NIXON LTD., MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMNR. OF INCOME TAX,MUMBAI

In the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High

65,298.00 and determined the tax payable by the appellant at Rs. 9,35,888.00. This amount of Rs. 9,35,888.00 was paid by the appellant on 12.02.1999 upon which a final certificate under Section 92 read with Section 91 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998 and the KVSS, 1998 was issued certifying that the appellant had paid

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

65,14,76,430/- 2011-12 Corporate Tax Assessment u/s 143(3) 2,11,61,29,711/- 2,11,61,29,411/- Thereafter, it went on to state:- "It is also to be noted that earlier refund was withheld vide notesheet dated 23.07.2018 after due approval due to non-availability of proceeding of return facility in ITBA

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

65,12,077/- and added the same to the income of the Respondent under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the IT Act’). (d) Being aggrieved with the said Assessment Order, the Respondent preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Learned CIT (Appeals), vide order dated 15.09.2005, upheld the order of the Assessing Officer and dismissed

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

Section 271(1)(c)(iii)? ii. What is meant by the term "total income" in Explanation 4(a)? Both these questions are fully answered by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City v. Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd., 40 ITR 142 (SC). Under the Finance Act, 1951, a provision was enacted to discourage the declaration

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) 2 vs. M/S MAHAGUN REALTORS (P) LTD

The appeal is allowed, in the above terms, without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

depreciation, etc., are allowed to the transferee. Therefore, unlike a winding up, there is no end to the enterprise, with the entity. The enterprise in the case of amalgamation, continues. 31. In Maruti Suzuki (supra), the scheme of amalgamation was approved on 29.01.2013 w.e.f. 01.04.2012, the same was intimated to the AO on 02.04.2013, and the notice under Section

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

65,833/- per wagon. The cost of each wagon worked out to Rs.15,29,724/- (6,55,833 + 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