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 on non- compete fee, it being an intangible asset, under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Civil Appeal No. of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 24756 of 2014) 9

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

9 High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. State Bank of Bikaner12; the Karnataka High Court in Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax13; and the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd.14 12. It was submitted that only the impugned judgments of the Gujarat High Court and Kerela High

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

9. Further conditions for the use of ITC are prescribed by sub-section (2) of Section 16. Civil Appeal No.2948 of 2023 etc. Page 42 of 91 28. Sub-section (3) of Section 16 is of some relevance as it provides that if a registered person has claimed depreciation on the tax component of the cost of capital goods

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

depreciation from 100% to 75% did not amount to reduction in loss and additional tax under Section 143(1-A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was only to prevent evasion of tax. He submits that when additional tax had clear and specific imprint of penalty, the Revenue could not be heard to say that the levy of additional

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S WOODWARD GOVERNOR INDIA P. LTD

9 which was carried on by the assessee at any time during the previous year.” Income from profits and gains of business or profession, how computed: Section 29: “The income referred to in section 28 shall be computed in accordance with the provisions contained in sections 30 to 43D.” General: Section 37 : “(1) Any expenditure (not being expenditure

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

9. Shri Sameer Parekh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that Part D of the Act reads as "Profit and Gains of Business or Profession". That, Section 32 relates both to "business" as also "profession" and since Section 32(1) of which (iv) is a sub clause, the assessee carrying on profession would be entitled to the depreciation

M/S. SOUTHERN TECHNOLOGIES LTD. vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, COIMBATORE

9 of the Prudential Norms 1998. As per the said method of accounting, the “Provision for NPA” actually represented depreciation in the value of the assets and, consequently, it is deductible under Section 37(1

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS PVT.LTD

The appeal is allowed without

9. In order to consider the rival submissions, it is necessary to take note of Section 143(1) (as it stood before and after amendment with effect from June 1, 1999), 147 and 148. The provisions read as follows: After amendment: \023143. Assessment- (1) Where a return has been made under section 139, or in response to a notice under

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

1)(ii) continued till 1.4.1996 when by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1995 the bottles and crates even below Rs. 5,000/- came within the “block of 9 assets” as defined under Section 2(11) of the 1961 Act. As stated, this judgment is confined to depreciable

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

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

depreciation as in sub-Paragraph (vii) above, the Appellant was assessed at a loss of Rs. 11,02,255.00 (Rs. 69,15,757.00) \026 Rs. 80,18,012.00 = - Rs. 11,02,255.00) In this manner, the carry-forward loss of Rs. 15,53,487.72 originally claimed by the appellant was reduced to Rs. 11,02,225.00. By order dated

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

9. In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Associated Fibre and Rubber Industries (P) Ltd. \026 (1999) 236 ITR 471, the Division Bench of this Court held as follows: "Even though the machinery has not been actually used in the business at the time when the assessment was made, the same has to be treated as a business

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

9 Rs.48,11,72,000.00 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

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

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

Appeals are disposed of with the aforementioned directions

1) on non-fulfillment of pre-requisite conditions for deduction under Section 80-IA/80-IB – it was held that the activities of the assessee do not amount to manufacturing; (2) little consumption of electricity and thus manufacturing is without the aid of 25 power; (3) non-employment of requisite workers in manufacturing process; (4) non-fulfillment of the condition

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

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

1 lakh to the disclosed income vide the assessment order dated 29.01.1992 passed under Section 143 (3) of the Act. 4 9. Likewise, for the assessment year 1991-1992, the assessee did not file any balance sheet along with the return of income for the same reason mentioned for the assessment year 1990-1991. The return of income was filed

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE

The appeal is allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

depreciation on permanent assets and securities. iii. The Commission’s order dated 11.12.2000, makes multiple references to the Report of the Commissioner, as required under Section 245D (1). Therefore, we find no substance in the submission of the Ld. ASG appearing on behalf of the Revenue that the procedure contemplated under Section 245D was not followed

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. A.R. ENTERPRISES

depreciation under sub- section (2) of section 32; (b) of a firm, or its partners, the method of computation of undisclosed income and its allocation to the partners shall be in accordance with the method adopted for determining the as- 21 Page 22 JUDGMENT sessed income or returned income for each of the previous years falling within the block period