Section 32 – taxcaselaw.com

Madras H.C : Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in sustaining the levy of penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act on the rejection of claim of depreciation which was surrendered in the course of the assessment proceedings and farther on the claim of certain expenses which claim was reversed in the same proceedings by the Appellant even though there was total violation of the principles of natural justice as well as the Doctrine of Fair Procedure

High Court Of Madras B. Loganathan vs. ITO Section 32, 260A, 271(1), 271(1)(c) Asst. Year 2000-01 Dr. Vineet Kothari & C.V. Karthikeyan, JJ. Tax Case Appeal No. 120 of 2009 7th February, 2019 Counsel Appeared: Kaushik, S.Sridhar for the Petitioner.: Premalatha, Jr. Standing Counsel for the Respondent. DR. VINEET KOTHARI, J.: The assessee has filed this …

Delhi H.C : Unabsorbed depreciation that was carried forward up to assessment year 2001-02 would be carried forward and set off against profits and gains of subsequent years without any limit whatsoever

High Court Of Delhi Pr.CIT-2 vs. British Motor Car Co. (1934) Ltd. Section :Â 32 S. Ravindra Bhat And A.K. Chawla, JJ. IT Appeal No. 1031 Of 2017 January 9, 2018 JUDGMENT S. Ravindra Bhat, J. – For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay in re- filing the present appeal is hereby condoned. CM …

Kerala H.C : There is no “manufacture” in the production of Ready Mix Concrete when the RMC itself is an excisable commodity/goods on which credit is also available for inputs

High Court Of Kerala Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd. vs. Union Of India Section 32(1)(iia) Asst. Year 2006-07 K.Vinod Chandran & Ashok Menon, JJ. ITA No. 15 of 2016 19th December, 2017 Counsel Appeared: A. Kumar, P.J. Anilkumar & G. Mini (1748) for the Appellant. : P.K.R. Menon, Sr. Counsel, GOI (TAXES) & Jose Joseph, …

Bombay H.C : Where under master agreement between Coca Cola and Parle group, assessee-subsidiary was to be formed for bottling soft drinks for coca cola and as a result of breach of contract by Coca Cola assessee’s fundamental right for starting bottling business was taken away, compensation received by assessee from Coca Cola would be treated as capital receipt

High Court Of Bombay CIT-8, Mumbai vs. Parle Soft Drinks (Bangalore (P.) Ltd.) Assessment year 1998-99 Section : 4, 2(4), 10(3), 55, 32 S.C. Dharmadhikari And Prakash D. Naik, JJ. IT Appeal Nos. 978 & 1765 (Bom.) Of 2014 November 17, 2017 JUDGMENT S. C. Dharmadhikari, J. – The Revenue has filed Income Tax Appeal No. …

Dellhi H.C : Order dated 31.03.2016 passed under section 263 of the Act was without jurisdiction, illegal and bad in law

High Court Of Delhi BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. vs. Pr.CIT, Delhi-2 Section : 32, 263 Assessment year 2010-11 Ravindra Bhat And Sanjeev Sachdeva, JJ. IT Appeal No. 387 Of 2017 November Â 8, 2017 ORDER S. Ravindra Bhat, J. – The following questions of law arise for consideration: (a) Whether on facts and in the circumstances of …

Bombay H.C : once the declaration is granted under Section 72A of the Income Tax Act, the amalgamated company can take advantage of the unabsorbed depreciation and accumulated losses

High Court Of Bombay Ballarpur Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT, Nagpur Section 72A,32, 43(6) K. Deshpande And Manish Pitale, Jj. IT Appeal Nos. 27 And 135 Of 2003 September Â 7, 2017 JUDGMENT R.K. Deshpande, J.Â – One Modern Stramit (I) Ltd., a sick company, was closed down by the end of the year 1986. It was referred to …

Bombay H.C : The Hon’ble ITAT is right in deleting the addition of Rs.1,53,313 on account of disallowance of excess claim of depreciation @60% as against 15% on UPS at par with the depreciation rate on computers when UPS are electrical equipments as held in the decision of Hon’ble Delhi Bench of ITAT in Nestle India Ltd. v DCIT (2007) 111 TTJ (Del) 0498

High Court Of Bombay (Goa Bench) Pr.CIT vs. Sesa Resources Ltd. Section 143(2), 32(iia), 28, 37 G.S. Patel & Nutan D. Sardessai, JJ. Tax Appeal No. 57 OF 2016 16th August, 2017 Counsel Appeared: Susan Linhares, Advocate for the Petitioner.: SR Rivankar, Advocate for the Respondent G. S. PATEL, J. A. INTRODUCTORY 1. The appellant, the …

Madras H.C : provisions of section 11(6) of the Act inserted with effect from 1.4.2015 shall operate prospectively with respect to assessment year 2015-2016 only

High Court Of Madras Director of Income-tax Exemption III, Chennai Vs. Medical Trust of the Seventh Day Adventists Section 32, 11 Nooty. Ramamohana Rao And Dr. Anita Sumanth, Jj. TCA. Nos. 844, 845, 848, 849, 1079 Of 2010 And Others 99 To 102, 118, 120, 125, 475 To 478 Of 2011, 457 Of 2012, 650 Of …

Delhi H.C : Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the ITAT was correct in law in confirming the addition on account of the claim of depreciation on software

High Court Of Delhi Chintels India Ltd. vs. DCIT, Circle 8 Section 32, 153A, 143 Assessment years 2009-10 & 2010-11 Dr. S. Muralidhar And Prathiba M. Singh, JJ. IT Appeal Nos. 581,707 & 731 Of 2016 July Â 19, 2017 ORDER Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.Â – These are three appeals filed by Chintels India Limited (hereafter ‘Assessee’) under …

Delhi H.C : the amount of exemption of sales tax payments was a trading receipt

High Court Of Delhi CIT Vs. Bhushan Steels & Strips Ltd. Section 4, 32 Assessment year 1995-96 Ravindra Bhat And Najmi Waziri, Jj. It Appeal Nos. 315 To 317, 349 Of 2003, 681, 708, 725, 755 Of 2004 & 434 Of 2005 July Â 13, 2017 JUDGMENT S. Ravindra Bhat, J. –Â The following common question arises in …

Category: Section 32