Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.23 seconds)The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Alagendran Finance Limited on 9 April, 2003
He further contended that the ratio in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME
TAX v. ALAGENDRAN FINANCE LTD., [2003] 264 ITR 269, which deals with
depreciation on centering sheets is also not applicable to the facts of the
case, as Steel Rollers cost more than Rs.5000/-.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Madan And Co. on 7 September, 2001
(ii) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. MADAN & CO., [2002] 254 ITR 4 45, this
question is answered in affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the
revenue.
Hela Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Anr. on 27 September, 2002
In the instant case, the learned counsel for the revenue is not
in a position to demonstrate or satisfy us that due to the change of
accounting method adopted by the respondent/assessee, which is permissible in
law as per the ratio laid down in (i) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. MATCHWELL
ELECTRICALS (I) LTD, [2003] 263 ITR 227; and (ii) HELA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD v.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, [2003] 263 ITR 129 , the revenue suffered any loss
or such a change of methodology attracts tax evasion. Concededly, there is no
finding to that effect in the assessment order or in the order of the
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
Section 32 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
First Leasing Co. Of India Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 9 May, 2000
5.2. This question is settled by a decision of this Court in FIRST
LEASING CO. OF INDIA LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, [2000] 244 ITR
238, wherein this Court held that each bottle was an independent unit and was
not dependent for its user on the availability of other bottles whether empty
or filled. The use of one bottle was not interconnected with the use of other
bottles. Since each bottle was an individual unit and all bottles together
did not constitute a single integrated unit depreciation under the proviso to
Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act was allowable. Even in the instant case, the
issue is relating to the allowance of 100% depreciation on each bottle and the
said decision squarely applies.
Section 147 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Matchwell Electricals (I) Ltd. on 11 December, 2002
In the instant case, the learned counsel for the revenue is not
in a position to demonstrate or satisfy us that due to the change of
accounting method adopted by the respondent/assessee, which is permissible in
law as per the ratio laid down in (i) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. MATCHWELL
ELECTRICALS (I) LTD, [2003] 263 ITR 227; and (ii) HELA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD v.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, [2003] 263 ITR 129 , the revenue suffered any loss
or such a change of methodology attracts tax evasion. Concededly, there is no
finding to that effect in the assessment order or in the order of the
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).