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

depreciation allowance should be extended to the assessee under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 7 7.4. CIT(A) vide

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

depreciation actually allowed” in Section 43(6)(b) of the 1961 Act 7. Deductions by way of depreciation allowance have

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 LIBERTY INDIA vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,KARNAL

7) cover the business of a ship, hotel etc. Thus, for all practical purposes, according to the learned counsel, the section has used the words “eligible business” and “industrial undertaking” interchangeably and, therefore, there is no material difference between Section 80-I and Section 80-IB as in both cases profits have to be derived from an industrial undertaking

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

7. According to the Department, depreciation stood allowed in the earlier years when the said bottles and crates were bought; that such depreciation 5 constituted “expenditure” under Section

M/S. VIJAY INDUSTRIES vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

7) Section 4 of the Act is a charging Section which makes total income of the previous year of every person chargeable to tax at the rates which may be specified from time to time. The said Section, thus, imposes income tax upon a person in respect of his income. Of course, income is to be charged at the rate

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

The appeal is partly allowed

depreciation of the value of the capital assets from taxable income. [1027 D] 6. Building which have not been specifically defined to include road in the Act must taken in the legal sense. [1027 D] 7. Section

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

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

7. Is depreciation allowable on the cost of a Stock Exchange Membership Card under Section 32(1)(ii) 8 of the Income

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

7. We quote hereinbelow Section 36(1)(iii) and Explanation 8 to Section 43(1) of the 1961 Act which read as follow: "OTHER DEDUCTIONS 36. (1) The deductions provided for in the following clauses shall be allowed in respect of the matters dealt with therein, in computing the income referred to in Section 28 - (iii) the amount

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

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

depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii-a) of the IT Act. 4.7 It is submitted that exactly the same principle applies to the interpretation of Section 10B (8) of the IT Act. Section 10B (8) enables an assessee to exclude the applicability of the deduction under Section 10B by filing a declaration to that effect before the last date

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

section further provided such depreciation allowance can be carried forward if the business or profession for which the depreciation allowance was originally computed, continued in the previous year relevant to the assessment year in question. It may be apposite to note that the said proviso has since been omitted by the Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 1st April, 2002. Page

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 on the assets used for power generation. This additional issue has been raised by the revenue in Civil Appeal No.13771 of 2015 (Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Jindal Steel and Power Ltd.). Revenue has also raised the issue of expenditure in Civil Appeal No.7425 of 2019 (Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Reliance Industries Ltd.). The expenditure claimed

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

depreciation, investment allowance etc. which otherwise could have been carried forward, to be carried forward. This construction of sub sections (1) and (2) section http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7

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

7 - Act in respect of any accounting year, was less than thirty per cent of its book profit, as defined in the Explanation, the total income of the company, chargeable to tax, shall be deemed to be an amount equal to thirty per cent of such book profit. The whole purpose of Section 115J of the Act, therefore

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

7. The High Court by its impugned judgment has confirmed the order passed by the Tribunal and held that the appellant is not entitled to the deduction claimed by it under Section 32(1)(iv) of the Act on the ground that it was a firm of professionals, who do not come within the purview of Section

MALAYALA MANORAMA CO LTD. vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM

The appeals are allowed and the

section 205(2) of the Act shall be disclosed by way of a note.\024 This makes it clear that Schedule VI to the 1956 Act does not create any obligation on a company to provide for any depreciation much less provides for depreciation as per Schedule XIV to the Act. It was also submitted by the appellant that

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

7 SCC 304, had occasion to consider elaborately the provisions of Section 143(1-A), its object and validity. There was a challenge to the retrospectivity of the provisions of Section 143(1-A) as introduced by Finance Act, 1993. The Gauhati High Court had held that retrospective effect given to the amendment would be arbitrary and unreasonable. The appeal