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

disallowed being regarded as non-revenue expenditure, not for the purpose of business of the assessee. Accordingly, the assessee was held to be not entitled to depreciation

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

disallowed. (vi) Accordingly, against the total amount of depreciation claimed at Rs. 1,47,97,994.00, an amount of Rs. 67,79,982.00 ( Rs. 57,51,520.00 + Rs. 10,28,462.00 = Rs. 67, 79, 982.00) was disallowed

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

disallowance of depreciation (Rs. 2,18,000.00) and disallowance in respect of premium paid (Rs. 3,57,153.00). The demand

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 should not be disallowed and why interest should not be taxed as receipt on the revenue account

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(CENTRAL) vs. M/S. GWALIOR RAYON SILK MFG.(WVG.)CO.LTD

The appeal is partly allowed

depreciation on the written down value of roads constructed by it as forming part of the cost of the factory building and also claimed development rebate on industrial transport used for transporting raw materials and finished goods within the factory premises 1018 The Income-tax Officer having disallowed

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA MILLS

The appeal is dismissed

depreciation and that it would not be perfectly open to the Income-tax Officer to disallow the claim if the assessee

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE

The appeal is allowed

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

disallowance of depreciation on 26 assets claimed to be leased. b) Treatment of bonus payments to employees. c) Treatment of share

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

depreciation on the turbines to Rs. 1,59,10,047.00 as against the claim of Rs. 2,85,37,634.00. However, vide the appellate order dated 16.05.2005, CIT (A) confirmed the disallowance

JT.COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,SURAT vs. SAHELI LEASING & INDUSTRIES LTD

Appeals stand allowed as mentioned hereinabove but with

depreciation, which was viewed to be incorrect. Thus, an amount of Rs. 24,22,531/- C.As. @ SLP (C) No. 5241 of 2007 etc…. (contd.) 6 was disallowed

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

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

depreciation at a higher rate on the ground that the vehicles were used in the business of running on hire. 4. The Assessing Officer disallowed

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

depreciation thereon. There were, however, some disallowances of the items in this capitalisation and .a ratio of 80:20 was accepted

PRIDE FORAMER S.A. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

disallowed the deduction of business expenditure under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act 19612, as well as carrying 1 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. 2 Hereinafter, ‘the Act’. Digitally signed by ARJUN BISHT Date: 2025.10.17 15:19:21 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified Page 2 of 13 forward of unabsorbed depreciation

BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX

disallowance of a sum of Rs.31,38,017/- for the Assessment Year 1994-1995, which sum was claimed by the assessee as expenses towards rent, repairs, depreciation

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

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

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

disallowance of Research and Development expenses not covered U/s. 35(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, by wrongly relying on the decision in ITA No.1546/JP/95 dated 30.03.2001? (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances the ITAT is justified in allowing the depreciation

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

The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs

depreciation on exchange rate fluctuation which had not been paid by the assessee. This issue was decided by the CIT(A) in favour of the assessee by relying upon his order in the case of Samtel Color Ltd. It was submitted during the course of hearing as also in the written propositions that departmental appeal in the case of Samtel

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

depreciation, renewals, etc. or providing for any known liability. Under Part – I of Schedule – VI, ‘reserve’ can be made in respect of capital reserves, capital redemption, share premium, etc. 6. Provision cannot be used to declare dividend, etc. Reserves can be utilized to pay dividends/ bonus, unless there is a statutory bar. Lastly, on the question of adding back