COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA MILLS

The appeal is dismissed

43A. That being the law, Income- tax Officer was bound to allow depreciation whether the assessee chooses to claim the same or not. To arrive at the profit, depreciation has to be deducted commercially, accountably as well as statutorily. Written down value of the plant and machinery for the next year will have to be claimed which cannot

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

disallowed by the assessing officer which was affirmed by the first appellate authority i.e., Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). On appeal by the assessee, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which decision has been affirmed by the High Court. The third additional issue relates to what is called carbon credit

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (IT)-I, MUMBAI vs. M/S. AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

43A, including Section 37. As a result, Section 44C functions as a special provision governing ‘head office expenditure’ for non-residents. Since Section 37(1) is a general provision, it only applies to head office expenditure not explicitly covered under Section 44C. Therefore, once an expense qualifies as ‘head office expenditure’ under the Explanation, it must be processed strictly under

OIL & NATURAL GAS CORP. LTD. TR. M.D. vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN

The appeals are allowed; the impugned orders are

1) of the Act, and he also took into consideration an increased liability of foreign exchange loans taken in capital account and repaid in the accounting year, for the purposes of depreciation, under Section 43A of the Act. He, however, did not allow to the Assessee its claim for foreign exchange loss claimed on such foreign currency loans both

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

The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs

43A. 6. On 9.12.2002, the assessee moved the Tribunal for rectification of mistake apparent from Order dated 2.4.2002. That application was made under section 254(2) which reads as under: "BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL: DELHI BENCHES HON’BLE "A" BENCH (HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT R.M. MEHTA & SH. HON’BLE SH. Y.K.KAPOR) IN THE MATTER OF : M/S SHRIRAM HONDA

C0MMNR. OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI vs. ORIENTAL FIRE & GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD

Bench: The Controller Of Insurance.

disallowing certain expenditure was set aside by orders dated 09.02.1979 and 09.09.1980. 4. Both the orders were questioned by the Revenue before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, ’the Tribunal). By reason of an order dated 30.11.1981, the Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not correct in refusing to accede to the deductions under the aforementioned heads claimed

WIPRO FINANCE LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed

43A of the 1961 Act.  The ITAT opined that the said provision had no application to the fact situation of the present case.   Having said that, it then proceeded to consider the question whether   the   loss   suffered   by   the   appellant   owing   to   exchange 2 for short, “CIT(A)” 3 for short, “ITAT” 4 (1997) 7 SCC 489 3 fluctuation