Blog Categories
Subscribe to Newsletter
Join our subscribers list to get the latest Tax Updates and Opportunities.
Knowledge Portal
Click here to explore deep insights, FAQs, and comprehensive tax guides.
Explore Now
Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd.: Whether 4th Proviso to Section 32(1) Restricting Aggregate Depreciation is Retrospective or Prospective in Cases of Corporate Amalgamation and Pre-Amendment Block Asset Transfers
2. FACTS OF THE CASE
The
case involves a bunch of statutory income tax appeals filed by the Revenue
against a common assessee, M/s Triveni Engineering & Industries
Ltd.. The primary dispute center...
Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd. — Whether 100% Depreciation can be Claimed Individually by Both Amalgamating and Amalgamated Companies on Same Assets under Section 32(1) Prior to the Introduction of the Fourth Proviso | Delhi High Court Case Law Analysis (ITA No. 258/2009)
3. Facts of the Case
During
the relevant financial year pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 1995-96,
the plant and machinery in question were initially owned and operated by M/s
Triveni Engineering Wor...
Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court) – Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for False and Unsustainable Claims of Deduction under Income Tax Act, 1961
Facts of the CaseZoom Communication Pvt. Ltd., engaged in the
business of hiring audio and video equipment, filed its return declaring
taxable income of ₹1,21,49,861.During scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer
...
Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd.: Whether Amalgamating and Amalgamated Companies Can Individually Claim 100% Depreciation on the Same Asset Under Section 32(1) Prior to the 4th Proviso and the Overriding Power of Section 40A(7) Over Section 43B Regarding Approved Gratuity Provisions
Facts of the CaseThe assessee, M/s Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd.,
underwent a corporate amalgamation during the financial year relevant to the
Assessment Year (AY) 1995-96. A scheme of amalgamation approved...
Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kapil Jain: Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer in Block Assessments under Section 158BD/158BC and Mandatory Limitation for Raising Objections under Section 124(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
Facts of the Case
On
September 20, 2009, a search operation was conducted at the premises of
Sh. Sumer Chand Jain, the father of the assessee (Kapil Jain).
Based
on documents seized during this sea...
Dhanesh Gupta & Co. vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) & Others (Delhi High Court) – Determination of Special Auditor's Remuneration under Section 142(2D) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
Facts of the CaseThe petitioner, Dhanesh Gupta & Co., a
firm of Chartered Accountants, was appointed as a Special Auditor under
Section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act for conducting special audits of Sahara
India F...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd. | Double Depreciation Claims via Amalgamation under Section 32(1) prior to Finance Act 1996 and Deduction of Gratuity Fund Provisions under Section 40A(7) vs Section 43B
Facts of the Case
The
Assessee/Respondent: Triveni Engineering & Industries
Ltd.
The
Amalgamation: M/s Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. merged
with the assessee company on October 1, 1994, ...
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-II) vs. Rajdhani Nurseries Ltd.: Dismissal of Revenue Appeals by Delhi High Court Following Precedent on Identical Assessee Controversy
Facts of the Case
Appeals
Filed: The Revenue filed two Income Tax Appeals,
namely ITA 1049/2010 and ITA 1051/2010, before the High
Court of Delhi.
The
Parties: The Appellant in both matters i...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-VIII v. Shri Shailesh Jain (2010) – Fixed Deposit Investments Already Disclosed Cannot Be Assessed as Undisclosed Income in Block Assessment Under Sections 158BC & 132 of the Income Tax Act
Facts of the
Case
A search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax
Act was conducted at the residential premises of the assessee, Shri
Shailesh Jain, on 11 January 2001.
During th...
Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd.: Whether Business Facilitation Outlays on Third-Party Infrastructure Without Ownership Vesting Under Section 32(1) Constitute Capital Expenditure or Allowable Revenue Expense Under the Income Tax Act, 1961
1. Facts of the Case
Business
Operations: The respondent-assessee is engaged in the
production of Aluminium from Bauxite.
Infrastructure
Setup: The respondent-assessee set up a captive
power ...