Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

Home › All Judgements › Dabur India Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)

Dabur India Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 23, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

While computing normal profits which do not involve Ch VI-A relief, an assessee is entitled not to claim depreciation. However, where deduction under Ch VI-A is claimed depreciation is mandatory.

Vahid Paper Mills 98 ITD 165 (SB) (Ahd) approved.

See also: Scoop Industries (Bom-Goa).

Related Posts:

  • Danisco India Private Ltd vs. UOI (Delhi High Court) Having regard to the position of law explained in Azadi Bachao Andolan Vs. Union of India, (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC) and later followed in numerous decisions that a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement acquires primacy in such cases, where reciprocating states mutually agree upon acceptable principles for tax treatment, the…
  • PCIT vs. Make My Trip India Pvt Ltd (Delhi High Court) The bank in question is not concerned with buying or selling of goods or even with the reason and cause as to why the card was swiped. It is not bothered or concerned with the quality, price, nature, quantum etc. of the goods bought/sold. The bank merely provides banking services…
  • FIS Global Business Solutions India Pvt. Ltd vs. PCIT (Delhi High Court) We find that the arguments on behalf of the petitioner are well founded and it must succeed. The audit report merely gives an opinion with regard to the non-availability of the deduction both under section 80-IA was not deducted from the profits of the business while computing deduction under section…
  • Turner General Entertainment Networks India Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO (Delhi High Court) It is evident that the concerned authorities and tax officials have to apply their mind to decide an application for stay of demand. This does not, however, mean that any particular AO in a given case has to impose a per se condition that pending consideration of the application for…
  • PCIT vs. Nokia Solutions & Networks India Pvt. Ltd (Delhi High Court) We are of the considered view that in cases where there is stay of recovery of demand of tax, the Tribunal should deal with the appeals pending before it on a higher priority. The Tribunal should consider forming a separate list of such cases which should be heard on priority…
  • India Today Online Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi) Rule 11UA will apply only if option is exercised in sub-clause (i), but if the assessee has been able to substantiate the fair market value in terms of sub-clause (ii), then valuation done by the assessee cannot be rejected simply on the ground that it does not stand the test…

Related Judgements

  1. CIT vs. Vardhaman Polytex (P & H High Court) (Full Bench) 

    (i) In considering whether the interest paid by an assessee on loans raised for acquisition of new asset, before the same was first put to use, is to be added towards the cost of the asset or the same is … CIT vs. Vardhaman Polytex (P & H…
  2. Jamna Auto Industries vs. CIT (P & H High Court) (Full Bench) 

    While damages or penalty which are compensatory in nature are allowable as a deduction u/s 37(1) of the Act, damages which are penal in nature and in respect of infraction of law are not allowable as a business expenditure. Amounts … Jamna Auto Industries vs. CIT (P &…
  3. Peninsula Land vs. CIT (Bombay High Court) 

    An order passed by the AO to give consequential effect to an appeallate order of an earlier year is not an order passed under section 154 and consequently the time limit of section 154(7) does not apply. Read more ›
  4. SET Satellite (Singapore) vs. DDIT (Bombay High Court) 

    The effect of Article 7 (1) of the DTAA and Circular No. 23 dated 23.7.1969 is that the income of a non-resident which is neither directly nor indirectly attributable to the PE cannot be brought to tax.
    Read more ›
  5. CCE vs. Shruti Colorants (Bombay High Court) 

    As s. 35-G of the Central Excise Act (and s. 130 of the Customs Act) provides that an appeal to the High Court shall be filed within 180 days of the receipt of the order appealed against and there is no provision for condonation of delay the court has…
0 comments on “Dabur India Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)”
1 Pings/Trackbacks for "Dabur India Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)"
  1. Plastiblends vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court) | archives says:
    December 19, 2008 at 5:08 pm

    […] see: Dabur India Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court) where Vahid Paper Mills 98 ITD 165 (SB) (Ahd) was upheld. Posted in All Judgements, High […]