Skip to content

taxcaselaw.com

My account

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

taxcaselaw.com

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

claim of depreciation

Sec. 260A, Sec. 271(1)(c ), Section 271, Section 32

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

Avijit Das / February 7, 2019

High Court Of Madras B. Loganathan vs. ITO Section 32, 260A, 271(1), 271(1)(c) Asst. Year 2000-01 Dr. Vineet Kothari & […]

S.C : The Assessing Officer, however, rejected the claim of depreciation on the ground that hiring business was not proved

Avijit Das / March 25, 2015

Supreme Court Of India K.M. Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. CIT Section 32 Assessment year : 1986-87 A.K. Sikri And Rohinton

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

Punjab & Haryana H.C : Depreciation was allowable on the capital assets, when deduction for capital expenditure incurred for acquisition of these capital assets has already been allowed as application of income of the trust

Avijit Das / July 5, 2010

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana CIT vs. Market Committee, Pipli Section 11(1)(a), 32 Asst. Year 2005-06 Adarsh Kumar Goel

S.C : The CIT(A) directing the AO to allow the claim of depreciation as per the IT Rules, 1962, for the purposes of computing the book profit under s. 115J

Avijit Das / February 16, 2010

Supreme Court Of India Dynamic Orthopedics (P) Ltd. vs. CIT Section 115J; IT Rule 5, COMP 205, COMP 349, COMP

Section 32, Sec. 32(1)

Kerala H.C : The assessee’s claim for higher rate of depreciation on tipper trucks and JCB mainly used for own business and partly let out to other parties

Avijit Das / January 11, 2010

High Court Of Kerala N.D. Joseph vs. CIT Section 32(1), IT Rule 5 C.N. Ramachandran Nair & V. K. Mohanan,

Income Tax Case Laws

Rajasthan H.C : The assessee was entitled to depreciation on trucks @ 40 per cent as against 30 per cent allowed by the ITO

Avijit Das / February 26, 2009

High Court Of Rajasthan : Jaipur Bench CIT vs. Bimalchand Jain Section IT 1962, Appendix I, Entry III(ii)D(9) Asst. Year

Section 32, Section 32A, Section 43A

Calcutta H.C : The appellant was not entitled to depreciation of Rs. 43,71,472 and the investment allowance of Rs. 27,01,145 on the increased cost of the plant and machinery resulting from increase in the liability to repay the foreign currency loans increased for purchase of such plant and machinery

Avijit Das / January 16, 2009

High Court Of Calcutta Century Enka Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Section 32, 32A, 43A Asst. Year 1988-89

Section 32, Section 34

Gujarat H.C : the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation allowance under s. 32 for the full year thereby granting depreciation twice on the same assets in one assessment year to the firm before the dissolution and to its partner after dissolution

Avijit Das / March 30, 2005

High Court Of Gujarat CIT vs. Fluid Controls MFG. Co. Sections 32, 34, Rule 5 Asst. Year 1983-84 D.A. Mehta

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

Scroll to Top