Skip to content

taxcaselaw.com

My account

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

taxcaselaw.com

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

Sec. 32(1)

Sec. 32(1), Sec. 43(3), Section 32, Section 32A, Section 43

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in confirming the view taken by the CIT(A) that the assessee’s building of massive reinforced concrete structure is an integral part of the plant and machinery and consequently in directing the ITO to allow investment allowance and depreciation thereon ?

Avijit Das / September 1, 2003

High Court Of Rajasthan : Jaipur Bench CIT vs. R.G. Ispat Ltd. Sections 32(1), 32A, 43(3) Asst. Year 1982-83 S.K. […]

Sec. 32(1), Section 11, Section 32

Bombay H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in directing the AO to allow depreciation on the assets the cost of which has been fully allowed as application of income under s. 11 in the past years ?

Avijit Das / July 9, 2003

High Court Of Bombay CIT vs. Institute Of Banking Personnel Selection Sections 11, 32(1) S. H. Kapadia & J.P. Devadhar,

Sec. 32(1), Sec. 37(1), Section 32, Section 37

Delhi Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the claim of assessee of Rs. 54,607 in respect of depreciation, power charges, engine-hire, despite the fact that business remained closed during the relevant accounting year ?

Avijit Das / July 8, 2003

High Court Of Delhi Sapna Tours, Travels & Lease vs. CIT Sections 32(1), 37(1) Asst. Year 1984-85 Y.R. Meena &

Sec. 32(1), Sec. 43(1)

Calcutta H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in directing to recompute the cost of the assets treating the gratuity liability as part of the actual cost of the assets and allow depreciation accordingly ?

Avijit Das / June 26, 2003

High Court Of Calcutta CIT vs. Hooghly Mills Co. Ltd. Sections 32(1), 43(1) Asst. Year 1989-90 D.K. Seth & R.N.

Sec. 32(1), Section 32

Gujarat H.C : Whether, in law and on facts, the assessee is entitled to depreciation at the rate of 30 per cent on two items, namely, (1) Hot Mixing Plant and (2) Paver Finishing Machine used by the assessee in its activity of road building ?

Avijit Das / June 25, 2003

High Court Of Gujarat CIT vs. Utkarsh Builders Sections 32(1), Rule Appendix I, Part I, item Nos. III-B(14), III-D(4) Asst.

Sec. 32(1), Section 32

Calcutta H.C : Whether a building of a cold storage is a plant. Mr. Soumitra Pal, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, had sought to draw a distinction between a plant and a building

Avijit Das / June 11, 2003

High Court Of Calcutta CIT vs. Shree Gopikishan Industries (P)Ltd. Sections 32(1), 43(3) D.K. Seth & R.N. Sinha, JJ. IT

Sec. 32(1), Section 32

Gauhati H.C : whether the building in question is a “plant” and therefore the assessee is entitled to claim higher rate of depreciation

Avijit Das / June 6, 2003

High Court Of Gauhati Nowrangroy Metals (P) Ltd. vs. JCIT Sections 32(1), 43(3) P.P. Naolekar, C.J. & I.A. Ansari, J.

Rajasthan H.C : Whether the Tribunal is legally justified in allowing depreciation on guest-house ignoring the specific provisions of s. 37(4) prohibiting allowance of depreciation on guest-house ?

Avijit Das / May 13, 2003

High Court Of Rajasthan CIT vs. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. Sections 32(1), 37(4) Asst. Year 1986-87 Y.R. Meena

Sec. 32(1), Section 32

Bombay H.C : Whether, on facts and circumstances of this case and in law, the Tribunal erred in the holding that interest under s. 234B and s. 234C was not leviable in case income was subjected to tax under s. 115J as it stood at the relevant time ?

Avijit Das / April 30, 2003

High Court Of Bombay CIT vs. Kotak Mahindra Finance Ltd. Sections 32(1), 234B, 234C, RULE Appendix I, Part I, Entry

Sec. 32(1), Section 32

Bombay H.C : Whether, on interpretation of the above Entry, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was not entitled to higher depreciation as the assessee did not run motor trucks, motor buses and motor vans on hire nor did it carry on the business of running them on hire ?

Avijit Das / April 30, 2003

High Court Of Bombay Kotak Mahindra Finance Ltd. vs. DCIT Sections 32(1), Rule Appendix I, Part I, Entry III(2)(ii) S.H.

Post pagination

← Previous 1 2 3 4 … 10 Next →

Copyright © 2024 taxcaselaw.com | Powered by Astra WordPress Theme

Scroll to Top