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

9. This appeal is by the revenue. Respondent is the assessee, details of which have already been mentioned in the previous appeal. 9.1. For the assessment year 2002-03, respondent filed its return of income on 31.10.2001 declaring net loss of Rs. 37,12,20,853.00. Initially the return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act but subsequently

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

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

The appeal is allowed without

vii) read with Section 36(2) of the Act were not fulfilled, the assessing officer reopened the assessment by issuing a notice in terms of Section 148 of the Act on the ground that it has reason to believe that the income assessable to tax had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act. The respondent asked

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

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

VII, Delhi to exercise jurisdiction in respect of offices of the Income Tax Assessing Officer situate at Civil Lines (No. 114). 23. Before, however, adverting to the jurisdictional issue raised by the Assessee herein, we may consider the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income-tax to issue notice in terms of Section 263 of the Act. It provides

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

depreciation of— (i) .. (ii)know-how, patents, copyrights, trade marks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, being intangible assets acquired on or after the 1st day of April, 1998, owned, wholly or partly, by the assessee and used for the purposes of the business 9 or profession, the following deductions shall be allowed— Explanation

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. UNITED PROVINCES ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO

In the result, appeal is allowed

vii), second proviso, notwithstanding. The reason for introducing this fiction appears to be this. Where in the previous years, by the depreciation allowance, the taxable income is reduced for those years and ultimately the asset fetches on sale an amount exceeding the written down value, i.e., the original cost less depreciation allowance, the Revenue is justified in taking back what

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

vii); 72A; 72AB, etc. 20 the transferee was in existence, vis-à-vis the transfer to the transferee company); carry forward of loss, depreciation, all bear out that under the Act, (a) the business-including the rights, assets and liabilities of the transferor company do not cease, but continue as that of the transferor company; (b) by deeming fiction- through

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

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS (GENERAL), N. DELHI vs. GUJARAT PERSTORP ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeals are allowed

9 SCC 74 : (2001) 123 ELT (SC). It was, therefore, submitted that the decision of CEGAT impugned in these appeals deserves to be quashed and set aside by allowing the appeals of the Department. It was submitted that two appeals have been filed by the Department for enhancement of penalty imposed by the Commissioner of Customs since the penalty

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

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

vii) There were no employees and no expenses incurred at Sikkim; viii) At the time of search and seizure on 15.03.1990 at the premises of Mr. Rattan Gupta & Co., the following things were seized: 1) Books of accounts 2) Funds 3) Memorandum and Articles of Association 4) Blank cheque books of the bank accounts held both in New Delhi, Gangtok

M/S. VIKRAM CEMENT vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE

depreciation under section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961). (5)(a) The CENVAT credit shall be allowed even if any inputs or capital goods as such or after being partially processed are sent to a job worker for further processing, testing, repair, re-conditioning or any other purpose, and it is established from the records, challans

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

1.—For the purposes of clause (ii), any machinery or plant which was used outside India by any person other than the assessee shall not be regarded as machinery or plant previously used for any purpose, if the following conditions are fulfilled, namely :— (a) such machinery or plant was not, at any time previous to the date of the installation

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

1) of section 210A: Provided that the standards of accounting specified by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India shall be deemed to be the accounting standards until the accounting standards are prescribed by the Central Government under this sub-section.” (Emphasis supplied by us) 10) The purpose behind the amendment in Section 211 of the Companies

M/S. SARAF EXPORTS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR - III

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

VII, New Delhi, (2012) 3 SCC 611 and Nissan Export Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2014) 14 SCC 152. 3.8 It is submitted that, therefore, and in view of the development of law in Meghalaya Steels Limited (supra) and the Topman Exports (supra) DEPB / Duty Drawback CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4822 OF 2022 Page 7 of 36 are “profits and gains