Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.81 seconds)Section 250 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Mysore Minerals Ltd., M.G. Road, ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Karnataka, ... on 1 September, 1999
10. The judgment in Mysore Minerals Ltd. vs. CIT [1999] 106 Taxman
166 (SC) was in regard to the property in which the assessee had received the
possession but sale deed was not executed. There was no dispute of two
persons jointly claiming to be in fractional ownership and accordingly
claiming fractional depreciation. Rather in this judgment it is observed in para
12 and 13 as follows :-
Section 234D in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 10 in Income Tax Rules, 1962 [Entire Act]
Seth Banarsi Das Gupta vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Ors. on 5 May, 1972
In Seth Banarasi Das Gupta case Hon'ble Supreme
Court while considering the question whether benefit of Section 10(2)(vi) of
the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 corresponding to Section 32(1) of the Act of
1961, would be admissible to assessee, where assessee is fractional owner of
asset had held that no such claim can be made.
The Companies Act, 1956
P.K. Badiani vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bombay on 21 September, 1976
In P.K Badiani v. CIT[1976] 105 ITR 642 the Supreme
Court has observed that allowance for depreciation is to replace
the value of an asset to the extent it has depreciated during the
period of accounting relevant to the assessment year and as the
value has, to that extent, been lost, the corresponding allowance
for depreciation takes place.
M/S. I.C.D.S. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr on 14 January, 2013
In the matter of I.C.D.S. Ltd. vs. CIT, Mysore [2013] 29 taxman.com
129 (SC) Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with the case where the assessee
company was engaged in the business of hier-purchase, leasing and real estate
and the dispute was with regard to depreciation of vehicles which assessee had
purchased directly from manufacturers. Again there was no dispute with regard
to fractional ownership. Hon'ble Supreme Court in para no. 19 had observed as
follows :-
1