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

94,90,393/-. 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 143(1-A) was substituted with retrospective effect

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

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

The appeals are allowed

94-Cus dated March 1994, the Company was not at all liable to pay custom duty. The Company also contended that the notifications were omnibus notifications and even if goods were covered by Chapter Heading 49.06 or 49.11, full exemption was granted. Thus, notwithstanding the fact that FEEP could be classified under Chapter Heading 49.11, in view of they being

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) CIRCLE 1(2) vs. M/S M.R. SHAH LOGISTICS PVT. LTD

Appeal is allowed in these terms, without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

94,675/- only and 6 not offered the amount of Rs. 62500000/- as income to suppress taxable income and to avoid tax payment and hence it is to be concluded that assessee had understated his income to the extent of Rs. 62500000/-. Hence the amount of Rs. 62500000/-being accommodation entry in form of share capital & share premium remained untaxed

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,CHENNAI vs. M/S ALAGENDRAN FINANCE LTD

Depreciation and disallowed in the computation of income, the assessee sought to claim in the form of Lease Equalisation from the lease rentals by virtue of the guidelines note of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. *** *** *** 7. Since the assessee has not given the complete details, the method adopted by the assessee in arriving at the correct profit

KILLICK NIXON LTD., MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMNR. OF INCOME TAX,MUMBAI

In the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High

94 -"For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that, save as otherwise expressly provided in sub-section (3) of Section 90, nothing contained in this Scheme shall be construed as conferring any benefit, concession or immunity on the declarant in any assessment or proceedings other than those in relation to which the declaration has been made." The Scheme

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE vs. DAI ICHI KARKARIA LTD

The appeals are dismissed

7 of 12 manufacturer is allowed to utilise the duty paid on inputs by deducting the same from the duty payable on the final product but subject to following the procedure under the Rules. It added, It is no doubt true that it will result in reduction in the cost of final product to the extent of the credit

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

VATSALA SHENOY vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

94 : 307 ITR 75 Page 14 JUDGMENT 14 Rs.11,50,400. Therefore, the sale consideration had been arrived at after taking into account the value of plant, machinery and dead stock as computed by the valuer and, consequently, it was held that the surplus arising on the sale was taxable under section