Category: Section 32

Madras H.C : the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law, in passing a cryptic order in sustaining the action of the respondent in restricting the claim of higher deprecation of 15% as against the claim of 60% for the computer machineries, thereby confirming the addition of the differential depreciation in the computation of taxable total income, while overlooking the functional test proving and establishing perversity in the order passed by them both on facts and in law

High Court Of Madras Dinamalar vs. ITO, Income Tax Department, Ward 11(1), Tirunelveli S. Manikumar And D. Krishna Kumar, JJ. Section 32 T.C.A. No. 624 Of 2016 September 2, 2016 ORDER S. Manikumar, J. – Tax Case Appeal is directed against the order dated 14.01.2016 made in I.T.A.No.2829/Mds/2015, for the assessment year 2011-2012, in the matter …

Madras H.C : The assessee is entitled for depreciation on the wind mill generator purchased from M/s. Simran Wing Project (P) Ltd., eventhough no evidence was produced before the assessing officer to show that the asset was transferred to the assessee as on 31.03.2008

High Court Of Madras CIT, Trichy vs. Sangu Chakra Hotels (P.) Ltd. Section 32, 251 Assessment Year 2008-09 S. Manikumar And D. Krishna Kumar, JJ. T.C.A. No. 591 Of 2016 August 23, 2016 JUDGMENT S. Manikumar, J. – Challenge in this Tax Case Appeal, is to an order made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in …

Rajasthan H.C : The AO framed the assessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 148 of the Act and disallowed the additional depreciation on CPP claimed by the assessee

High Court Of Rajasthan CIT, Udaipur vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Section 32, 80-IA, 80-IB and 148 Assessment year 2005-06 Sangeet Lodha And Kailash Chandra Sharma, JJ. D.B. It Appeal No. 166 Of 2014 May 20, 2016 ORDER Sangeet Lodha, J. – This appeal is directed against order dated 4.3.14 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), …

Delhi H.C : For computing the net worth under Section 50B, Section 43(6)(c)(i)(C) is not applicable in case of slump sale of the undertaking includes the entire block of assets

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Dharampal Satyapal Section 260A, 50B, 43, 32 Asst. Year 2001-02 S. Muralidhar & Vibhu Bakhru,JJ. ITA 1003/2011 6th January, 2016 Counsel appeared: Raghvendra Kumar Singh, Junior Standing Counsel and Shikhar Garg for the Appellant.: Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate with Kavita Jha and Vaibhav Kulkarni for the Respondent VIBHU BAKHRU, J. …

Karnataka H.C : Additional depreciation allowed u/s. 32(1) (iia) is a onetime benefit to encourage industrialization and the relevant provisions has been construed reasonably and purposive without appreciating that the additional depreciation is allowed in the year of purchase and if in the year of purchase the assessee is eligible only for 50% depreciation, the balance 50% cannot be carried forward for the subsequent year or the claim cannot be allowed in any other year where the section 32(1) (iia) does not speak of any further depreciation except in the year of purchase

High Court Of Karnataka CIT & Anr. vs. Rittal India (P) Ltd. Section 32(1)(iia), 260A Asst. Year 2010-11 N.K.Patil & S. Sujatha, JJ I.T.A.NO. 590 OF 2015 4th January, 2016 Counsel appeared: K.V. Aravind, Adv, for the Appellant. N.K.PATIL, J.: 1. This appeal by the Revenue is arising out cl the impugned order dated 11/06/2015, passed …

S.C : Whether Rs. 12,24,700/- claimed as revenue expenditure by the Association of persons which was constituted by the three partners of the erstwhile firm, MGBW, can be allowed as permissible deduction in the hands of the said Association of persons under Section 37 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, as being laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the said Association of Persons?

Supreme Court Of India Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works vs. CIT, Mysore Section : 37(1), 32, 43(3), 260A Madan B. Lokur And S.A. Bobde, JJ. Civil Appeal Nos. 10547-10548 Of 2011 October 15, 2015 JUDGMENT Madan B. Lokur, J. – These appeals are directed against a judgment and order dated 23rd December, 2010 passed by the Division …

Delhi H.C : Which AY can the Assessee capitalize the customs duty levied on import of hospital equipment and claim depreciation?

High Court Of Delhi CIT-XIII vs. Noida Medicare Centre Ltd. Assessment Year : 2009-10 Section : 32 Dr. S. Muralidhar And Vibhu Bakhru, JJ. IT Appeal No. 529 Of 2014 August 4, 2015 ORDER 1. This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) is directed against an order dated …

S.C : the assessee has failed to furnish form 3AA along with the return of income. Admittedly, Form 3AA was submitted during the course of assessment proceedings and it is not in dispute that the assessee is entitled to the additional depreciation. In these circumstances, in the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shivanand Electronics [1994] 209 ITR 63 (Bom.), we see no merit in this appeal

Supreme Court Of India CIT, Maharashtra vs. G. M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd. Section : 32, 80-IB Assessment year 2005-06 A.K. Sikri And Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ. Civil Appeal Nos. 10782 Of 2013 & 4048 Of 2014 July 24, 2015 ORDER 1. It would be suffice to reproduce para 2 of the impugned order whereby action …

Delhi H.C : Whether the assessee is entitled to depreciation in respect of the hotel building, under Section 32 of the Act?

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Bharat Hotels Section 260A, 143(3), 32, 269 Asst. Year 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94 S. Muralidhar & Vibhu Bakhru, JJ. ITA 69/2000, 70/2000, 71/2000, 72/2000, 73/2000 24th July, 2015 Counsel appeared: Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate with Prakash Kumar and Bhovita Kumar, Advocates for the Petitioner.: N.P. Sahni, Senior Standing counsel …

S.C : The unabsorbed depreciation should be allowed before the allowance of the unabsorbed investment allowance in computing income of the appellant/assessee for the Assessment Year 1991-1992, when the assessee had not claimed the unabsorbed depreciation in its income-tax return though it had claimed depreciation for the current year

Supreme Court Of India Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. vs. DCIT Section : 32, 32A Assessment Year : 1991-92 A.K.Sikri And Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ. Civil Appeal Nos. 1812 & 1813 Of 2005 And 4498 Of 2015 May 15, 2015 JUDGMENT A.K. Sikri, J. – Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 15251 of 2008. …