M/S SSJV PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. M/S ALLAHABAD BANK

In the result, the writ appeals are disposed in

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,R. NATARAJ

Section 104 of the said Act, certain provisions of the said Act do not apply to plantations. The word ‘plantation’ is explained under Section 104 to mean land used by a person principally for the cultivation of plantation crops and includes any land used ancillary to the cultivation of such crop or for preparation of the same

SRI U M RAMESH RAO vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA

In the result, the writ appeals are disposed in

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,R. NATARAJ

Section 104 of the said Act, certain provisions of the said Act do not apply to plantations. The word ‘plantation’ is explained under Section 104 to mean land used by a person principally for the cultivation of plantation crops and includes any land used ancillary to the cultivation of such crop or for preparation of the same

M/S FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

64 wherein dealing with the case of a partner who introduced a Capital of `12,20,000/- in the Partnership Firm and explained that Capital contribution to have been received by her as ‘Gifts’ and the donors of such ‘Gifts’ were also produced before the Assessing Authority and even though the Assessing Officer held that the ‘Gifts’ were not genuine

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 vs. AURA JEWELS

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

Section 68 of the Act. 3. The respondent [Assessee] is engaged in the business of retail trading of jewelry, gold, silver and other ornaments. The Assessee had furnished its return of income for A.Y.2017-18, inter alia declaring gross receipts of `21.99 Crores. The same included cash sales amounting to `11,64

SMT.K.SOWBAGHYA vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

64 2002 that sub- section or on the date of an order made under sub- section (2) of section 8, whichever is earlier. (4) Nothing in this section shall prevent the person interested in the enjoyment of the immovable property attached under sub-section (1) from such enjoyment. Explanation.— For purposes of this sub- section

SMT.K. SOWBAGHYA vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

64 2002 that sub- section or on the date of an order made under sub- section (2) of section 8, whichever is earlier. (4) Nothing in this section shall prevent the person interested in the enjoyment of the immovable property attached under sub-section (1) from such enjoyment. Explanation.— For purposes of this sub- section

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA vs. HASSAN THERMAL POWER PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

section. The effect of this will be dealt with in the latter part of our judgment. “ 68. The Apex Court in the aforesaid case has held that KERC is jurisdictionally competent to take upon the disputes between the licencess and the generating companies. The KERC is constituted in exercise of the powers conferred under the provisions as contained under

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/s. KHYATHI STEEL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,

In the result, we pass the following:

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

68 of the Income Tax Act is discharged by the assessee?" 2. After hearing Shri E.I. Sanmathi, learned standing Counsel for Revenue and learned Senior Advocate Shri A. Shankar, for the assessee, in our opinion, only the following question arises for consideration in this appeal and with the consent of learned Advocates for the parties, we have framed the following

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

64 in the text & context of Section 37 primarily denotes the idea of spending or paying out or paying away. It is something that has gone irretrievably. Expenditure is not necessarily confined to the money which has been actually paid out, but it covers a liability which has accrued due or incurred, although it may have to be discharged

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WIPRO LTD

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

68 - 52. Section 10A (1) speaks of “deduction”. The deduction is of profits and gains for a period of ten consecutive assessment years. The said deduction is from the total income of the assessee. Therefore, the total income before allowing the said deduction includes the profits and gains from the business referred to in Section 10A(1). Section

M/S WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

68 - 52. Section 10A (1) speaks of “deduction”. The deduction is of profits and gains for a period of ten consecutive assessment years. The said deduction is from the total income of the assessee. Therefore, the total income before allowing the said deduction includes the profits and gains from the business referred to in Section 10A(1). Section

M/S T T K PRESTIGE LTD vs. THE UNION OF INDIA REPTD BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.B. Bajanthri W.P. No.26037/2005 C/W W.P.No.4464/2007 & W.P.No.27087/2005(It)

64 vision. Another thing which is obvious from the provisions referred to above is that computation of income under the head 'Income from salaries' is not confined to payment of periodical cash payment but is to be understood in its wider sense to include the valuation of any perquisite or profit in lieu of salary which he enjoys by dint

PR,COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SUBRAMANYA CONSTRUCTIONS

In the result, we do not find any merit in these

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

68,720/- by making disallowance under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules for an amount of Rs.4,95,90,007/-. 3. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 21.12.2012 inter alia deleted the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SUBRAMANYA CONSTRUCTIONS

In the result, we do not find any merit in these

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

68,720/- by making disallowance under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules for an amount of Rs.4,95,90,007/-. 3. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 21.12.2012 inter alia deleted the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules

JAY PEE CEMENT CORPORATION LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS vs. THE GULBARGA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. LTD. ORS

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice E.S. Indiresh

64 emphasise that under Section 2(c) of the Electricity Act, a consumer means any person who is supplied with energy, and since liability to pay electricity dues is fastened only on the consumer, at the relevant time, the purchaser was not the consumer. It has also been stated that in the absence of consumption of electricity, the subsequent

MR. BINEESH KODIYERI vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Suraj Govindaraj Writ Petition No. 13261 Of 2020 (Gm-Res) Between: Mr. Bineesh Kodiyeri S/O Mr. Kodiyeri Balakrishnan Aged About 37 Years Kootamvilla Lane, Maruthankuzhi Thiruvananthapuram District Kerala State – 695013

64 (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), an offence relating to”- A. Prohibited goods; or B. Evasion or attempted evasion of duty exceeding fifty lakhs rupees, shall be congnizable (5) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (4), all other offences under the Act shall be non-cognizable. (6) Notwithstanding anything

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA (HUF)

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

64,54,375/-. As the returns was filed beyond time limit prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Act, he declined to permit the assessee to carry forward the long-term capital loss of Rs.1,24,03,271/-. Consequently, he also set aside the order passed by the Assessing Authority insofar as the interest is concerned. Aggrieved by this

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.PARVATHI MADHAVA

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

64,54,375/-. As the returns was filed beyond time limit prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Act, he declined to permit the assessee to carry forward the long-term capital loss of Rs.1,24,03,271/-. Consequently, he also set aside the order passed by the Assessing Authority insofar as the interest is concerned. Aggrieved by this