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? The Full Bench went on to answer this question with the observations that it was no longer res integra as the Apex Court had reflected thereupon in the case of Liberty India and quoted the following passage from the said judgment in support of its aforesaid 16 remarks: “13. Before analyzing section 80-IB, as a prefatory note

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

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

72 of the IT Act, withdrawing its claim for deduction under Section 10B of the IT Act. It is contended that the High Court has not properly appreciated the fact that by filing a declaration subsequently and filing the revised return of income, the intent of the assessee was to frustrate the purpose of Section

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

depreciation allowance under section 32, investment allowance under section 32-A, losses under sections 72, 72A, 73, 74 and permissible

M/S. SYNCO INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. ASSESSING OFFICER,INCOME TAX MUMBAI &ANR

depreciation as per Section 72 is evident and therefore Section 72 has to be applied before the total income of an assessee

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

The appeals are allowed and the

72 or Section 73 or Section 74 or sub-section (3) of Section 74-A or sub- section (3) of Section 80-J.\024 A new Chapter XII-B containing section 115J was inserted by the Finance Act, 1987 with effect from Ist April, 1988. This new section made provisions for levy of minimum tax on book profits of certain

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

72,000.00 as against Rs.80,10,38,505.00 claimed by the assessee. 9.1. In its order dated 07.06.2007, Tribunal noted that the dispute between the parties related to the manner of computing profits of the undertaking of the assessee engaged in the business of generation of power for the purpose of relief under Section

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

Appeals are allowed

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

depreciation, Section 32AB gives deductions in respect of certain investment allowance. After providing for admissible deductions to an assessee, income under this head is ascertained. In a similar way, as noted above, income under the other heads is worked out. If a particular assessee has income under more than one heads, in the income tax returns, the said assessee would

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(CENTRAL) vs. M/S. GWALIOR RAYON SILK MFG.(WVG.)CO.LTD

The appeal is partly allowed

depreciation. It is to be worked out in terms of section 32 of the Act read with the Rules in the Appendix. [1030 C-E] 2.(a). The expressions used in a taxing statute would ordinarily be understood in the sense in which it is harmonious with the object of the statute to effectuate the legislative animation

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 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

JT.COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,SURAT vs. SAHELI LEASING & INDUSTRIES LTD

Appeals stand allowed as mentioned hereinabove but with

depreciation, the taxable income of the Assessee was NIL and hence, there was no tax liability. According to Assessee, in such a case no penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) could have been levied. 16. Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, Special Range-2, C.As. @ SLP (C) No. 5241 of 2007 etc…. (contd.) 7 Surat, on the basis of the discussion

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 under the head “it is more beneficial to it”. He submitted that in the modern era, theatre building and hotel building are integral part of operation for carrying out such business and, therefore, such building should be considered as a “plant”. Ultimately, in paragraph 67, this Court held thus: “67. In the result, it is held that the building

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

NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO

72%   of   their   original   investment. According to the assessing officer “The natural inference could be that it was NDTV’s own funds introduced in NNPLC in the grab of the impugned bonds.”   The details of the investors are given in this communication giving reasons.  Mention has also been made of complaints received from a minority shareholder in which

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

72. 66. Mr. Ajay Vohra, learned senior counsel, appearing for the Apparel Export Promotion Council (AEPC) urged that it is a non-profit organization set up with approval of the Central Government, for promotion of exports of garments from India (i.e., promotion of trade). It was registered under Section 12AA(1) of the IT Act, on 18.05.1979 and is engaged

2TATE BANK OF PATIALA, PATIALA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA

The appeals are allowed

72, 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1975- 76 qualified as a reserve for inclusion in the capital of the assessee under Second Schedule ot the companies {Profits) sur-tax, Act,1964." (emphasis supplied) By a detailed judgment dated 27.7.1992 the High Court took the view that on the facts and circumstances of the present case, sums of money set apart