M/S.SHASUN CHEMICALS AND DRUGS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

The appeals are allowed

block period was 10 years starting from the Assessment Year 1995-96 to Assessment Year 2004-05. The High Court, however, disallowed

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

disallowances which are not the subject matter of the appeal. 11.4. Assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A), Chennai. During the appellate proceedings, assessee raised additional grounds of appeal which according to it were ignored by the assessing officer in the assessment proceedings. One of the additional grounds raised by the assessee related to claim of depreciation of intangible assets

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR vs. MCDOWELL & CO. LTD

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: The High Court Are As Follows: (1) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The I.T.A.T. Was Justified In Holding That The Unpaid Amount Of Bottling Fee Has, On Furnishing Of The Bank Guarantee, To Be Treated As Actual Payment & Accordingly Allowing The Deduction In Respect Of The Same Under Section 43B Of The Act, Even Though The Sum Has Not Been Actually Paid Before The Due Date Of Filing The Return Under Section 139(1) Of The Act. (2) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The I.T.A.T. Was Justified In Allowing The Depreciation On Research & Development Assets Which Related To The Closed Business Of Fast Food Division/Unit Of The Assessee-Company As Such Not Used During The Previous Year? (3) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The I.T.A.T. Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.2,77,887/- 2

block of assets and not sold or discarded or demolished or destroyed. 3 5. Learned counsel for the revenue placed strong reliance on Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai and Ors. v. Saravana Spinnig Mills (P) Ltd. (2007 (7) SCC 298). It was highlighted that in Liquidators of Pursa Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar

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

assessment order dated 14th December, 2009, disallowing the deduction is as follows : “The same is not acceptable on the ground that the value of plant and machinery has exceeded Rs.1 crores as per the depreciation schedule annexed to the 3CD report which do not come under the purview of the definition of small scale industry for the year ending

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 MUMBAI vs. M/S. ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGER

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

disallow expenditure incurred to earn exempt income by applying the provisions of newly inserted section 14A of the Act.” 17. By   Finance   Act,   2002,   a   statutory   provision   was   also inserted by way of proviso to Section 14A.  What was clarified by the Circular have been statutorily engrafted in the proviso to the following effect:­            “Provided that nothing contained in this

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

disallowance of depreciation made by the assessing officer. 38. On further appeal by the assessee before the Tribunal, vide the order dated 07.06.2007, the Tribunal on the basis of its previous decision in the case of the assessee itself for the assessment year 2000-2001 answered this question in favour of the assessee. 39. When the matter came up before

HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD. vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,DELHI

The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs

block of assets and claimed depreciation accordingly. The A.O. came to the conclusion that such revision in the actual cost was not admissible as section 43A refers to adjustment qua the actual cost of the machinery on account of increase or decrease in the liability of unpaid loans utilized for the purchase of machinery. 4. Aggrieved by the said decision

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

assessment year on the 1st day of April, 1991, the deduction in relation to any block of assets under this clause shall, in the case of a company, be restricted to seventy-five per cent of the amount calculated at the percentage, on the written down value of such assets, prescribed under this Act immediately before the commencement

M/S. I.C.D.S. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

disallowed claims, both of depreciation and higher rate, on the ground that the assessee’s use of these vehicles was only by way of leasing out to others and not as actual user of the vehicles in the business of running them on hire. It had merely financed the purchase of these assets and was neither the owner nor user

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD

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

disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessees holding that they did not engage in the production or manufacture activity because of the reason that LPG was produced and manufactured in refineries and thereafter there was no change in the chemical composition or other properties of the Gas in the activity of filling the cylinder. This view was affirmed by Commissioner

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

disallowed in the subsequent year, in the case of the then transferee company. The decision of the Delhi High Court, in Spice (supra), after discussing the decision in Saraswati Syndicate, went on to explain why assessing an amalgamating company, without framing the order in the name of the transferee company is fatal: “10. Section 481 of the Companies Act provides

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN vs. M/S ENRON OIL & GAS INDIA LTD

Bench: Cit(A), Who After Analyzing The Psc Held That Each Co-Venturer In This Case Had Made Contribution At A Certain Rate Whereas The Expenditure Incurred Out Of The Said Contribution Stood Converted On The Basis Of The Previous 2

blocks. A consortium of EOGIL with RIL was given the contract. Later on, ONGC joined. EOGIL with RIL and ONGC executed Production Sharing Contract (PSC) with Government of India. EOGIL was entitled to a participating interest of 30% in the rights and obligations arising under the PSC. RIL was also entitled to participating interest of 30%. ONGC was entitled

SHIV RAJ GUPTA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI IV

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

block of shares, which was sold at the price of INR 30 per share (when the listed market price of the share was only INR 3 per share). It is stated in the said MoU that the entire sale consideration of Rs.55,83,270/- has since been paid by the SWC group to Shri Gupta, as a result of which