ASSTT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX I NEW DELHI vs. M/S E FUNDS IT SOLUTION INC

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

depreciation, investment losses, deductible expenses, carry- forward and set-off losses, etc. However, deviations are made by DTAA in cases of royalty, interest, etc. Such deviations are also made under the IT Act (for example Sections 44-BB, 44-BBA, etc.). 36. Under the impugned ruling delivered by AAR, remuneration to MSAS was justified by a transfer pricing analysis

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

Depreciation is not there in Section 36(1)(iii). That is why the legislature has used the words "unless the context otherwise requires". Hence, Explanation 8 has no relevancy to Section 36(1)(iii). It has relevancy to the aforementioned enumerated sections. Therefore, in our view Explanation 8 has no application to the facts of the present case. http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

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

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX-I,NEW DELHI vs. VATIKA TOWNSHIP P.LTD

Appeals of the assessees are allowed deleting the surcharge levied by the

90,000/- to give effect to the above order of the CIT (Appeals), and thereby removing the component of the surcharge. 5. As the Department wanted the surcharge to be levied, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-I), New Delhi issued a notice under Section 263 of the Act to the assessee and sought to revise the order dated

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

90,393/-. Even as per reduction of 25% depreciation the return of loss income of the assessee remained. In claiming 100% depreciation the assessee claims that there was no intention to evade tax and the said claim was only a bonafide mistake. As noted above by the Finance Act, 1993 Section

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

90 of 2023 challenging clauses (c) and (d) of Section 17(5) of the CGST Act to the extent to which it excludes works contract services and goods from ITC. It is also prayed that the bar imposed by Section 16(4) should not apply to the petitioner; b. Writ Petition (C) No. 804 of 2022 challenging the validity

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

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

depreciation under section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), or as revenue expenditure under any other provisions of the said Income-tax Act, in respect of that part of the value of capital http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 21 goods which represents the amount of specified duty on such capital goods

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HYD. vs. M/S. P.J. CHEMICALS LTD

In the result, we affirm the judgments of the High Courts which have

Section 43(1) of the Act for purpose of calculation of depreciation etc. 2. The second batch consists of matters in which the High Court has taken a contrary view against the assessee and where the assessee has come up in appeal. There is thus a divergence of judicial opinion on this question. 3. We may refer to the facts

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL vs. DY.COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX & ANR.ETC.ETC

Appeals are allowed accordingly

depreciation it results in a loss, can no adjustment in book profit under sec.115J of the I.T. Act be allowed?’ This reference was made on 25.9.1992 in the prescribed form and it was sent alongwith covering letter dated 25.9.92 to the President of the I.T.A.T. at Delhi. Thereupon the President, ITAT had accepted the reference and constituted a Special Bench

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

Section 45JA RBI, having considered it necessary in public interest and being satisfied that for the purpose of enabling the Bank to regulate the credit system, it was necessary to issue directions relating to Prudential Norms, gives to every Non-Banking Financial Company the following directions. The said directions are called as “NBFCs Prudential Norms (Reserve Bank) Directions, 1998”: Definitions

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

depreciation as claimed and by taxing the interest income of Rs.1,07,85,590 as income from other sources and thus raised the demand of Rs. 1,30,83,741 under various heads and sections of taxes, surcharge and additional tax under Sections 143(1A), 234A and 234B. 4. Mr. Shah, learned counsel appearing for the assessee, has contended that

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

VATSALA SHENOY vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

depreciable assets. For the purposes of calculation/ computation, figures were taken from Table II incorporated in the Assessment Order itself mentioning the market value of these assets. This Table II reads as under: S.No. Asset %age Sales/Market Value Amount in assessee's case 1. Land as per H.S. Seshagiri – Registered Valuer 19.00 17,47,90

THE INDIAN TUBE COMPANY LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

90,00,000 or any part thereof would be reserve for computing http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8 the capital as on January 1, 1963. From the above fact, it is clear that a sum of Rs. 76,00,000 earmarked by the director’s recommendation dated May 3,1963 as dividend, was approved

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

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE,PUNE vs. HINDUSTAN NATIONAL GLASS & INDS. LTD

In the result, the appeal is allowed, the order passed

90% advance from M/s. Coca Cola India and 100% advance from M/s. Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. for the goods and it was giving 3-4% discount to the said Companies. 3. After the reply to the show cause was received, the adjudicating authority passed an order on 28th November, 2003, making a demand