Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.24 seconds)The Income Tax Act, 1961
Haryana State Agricultural Marketing ... vs Acit, Panchkula on 21 December, 2016
In Kerala State Electricity Board vs. DCIT (2010) 329 ITR 0091, Hon'ble
High Court of Kerala observed that, -
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Orient Ceramics & Inds. Ltd. on 20 January, 2011
11. Having considered the submissions of both the parties, we find that in
view of several judicial pronouncements relied upon by the assessee, the ld.
CIT(A) has rightly allowed the claim of the assessee in this regard. Hon'ble
Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Orient Ceramics and Inds. Ltd. (ITA No.
65 & 66 of 2011) has held as under :
Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Bses Yamuna Power Ltd on 17 July, 2017
"13. The third issue pertaining to depreciation on UPS arises only in the
Assessment Year 2005-06. The assessee had claimed depreciation on
UPS @ 60% whereas the AO had allowed it @ 25% and on this basis,
disallowance of 1,470 was made. The issue now stands covered by the
judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs.
BSES Yamuna Powers Ltd. (in ITA No. 1267 decided on 31.08.2010)
wherein it was held that the depreciation @ 60% on such items shall be
allowed.
The Companies Act, 1956
The Finance Act, 2018
Section 12 in The Delhi Electricity Reform Act, 2000 [Entire Act]
Section 115JA in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax 5 Mumbai vs M/S. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. Through ... on 31 January, 2018
29. Now coming to the argument that Rule 8D is only prospective in its
operation and has no application to the assessment year 2006-07, the Hon'ble
Apex Court in CIT vs. Essar Teleholdings Ltd (2018) 401 ITR 455 (SC) held that
Rule 8D is prospective and applies only from the assessment year 2008-09.