DELHI FARMING & CONSTRUCTION(P) LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, we set aside the judgment of the High Court and uphold the

section 104 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (’the Act’) for the assessment years 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77, for its failure to distribute the required statutory percentage of dividend during the concerned previous years ending on 31st March 1973. 31st March 1974 and 31st March 1975, respectively. The figures of total income-tax assessed and the distributable

CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX vs. M/S SAFARI RETREATS PRIVATE LIMITED

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA

capital goods and plant and machinery if he claims depreciation on the said tax component under the Income Tax Act. The object is that a registered person does not take advantage of both depreciation and ITC. 29. Now we come to sub-Section (4) of Section 16. Before the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2022, the sub-section read

KILLICK NIXON LTD., MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMNR. OF INCOME TAX,MUMBAI

In the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High

capital gains to the extent of Rs. 4,00,000.00. (d) Disallowance under Rule 6D to the extent of Rs. 31,963.00." Being aggrieved by the decision of the CIT (Appeals), the assessee carried an appeal before the Income Tax Tribunal in respect of premium, depreciation and interest, which together represented an amount of Rs. 32,84,153.00. http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

NECTAR BEVERAGES PVT. LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX

gains of business or profession and accordingly chargeable to income-tax as the income of that previous year, whether the business or profession in respect of which the allowance or deduction has been made is in existence in that year or not. We also quote hereinbelow Section 41(2) [Omitted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (IT)-I, MUMBAI vs. M/S. AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

capital gain; but, in the case of goodwill generated in a new business, it was not possible to determine the date when it came into existence. In view of these observations of the Supreme Court, we are inclined to hold that if any one or more of the base figures forming part of computations under clauses

M/S.VIRTUAL SOFT SYSTEMS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-I

91 (Delhi). In the said case, the order passed under section 143 (1A)(a) of the Act was quashed under similar circumstances where, after adjustment, the assessee was still found to be in losses." [Emphasis supplied] In J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. ACIT, 200 ITR 584 (Del.), it was held as under: - "The income-tax is payable only on income which

THE INDIAN HOTELS COMPANY LTD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,CIRCLE 1, BOMBAY

In the result, Transferred Cases No

91) ITR 289] of the High Court. Against that order petition under section 256(2) of the Act was filed before the High Court of Kerala which was rejected by order dated 7.1.1985. That order is challenged in this appeal. S.L.P.(C) No. 324/1997 Leave granted. In this appeal also, the assessee Hotel Shashi Private Ltd., a company engaged

MANSAROVAR COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

91 as under: (i) The Assessees, incorporated under the company law of Sikkim, are resident Indian companies. If any income accrued to them or was earned by them in India prior to 1st April 1990, then such income is taxable under the Act. (ii) The Revenue is justified in contending that the Assessees not having raised such objection

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 12AA(1) of the IT Act, on 18.05.1979 and is engaged in the activity of promotion of the export of all kind of ready-made garments, knitwear, and garments made of leather, jute and hemp. It does not per se engage in any activity for profit, and its mandate is to ensure that Indian apparel manufacturers, are given forums

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs

gains” or “Income from other sources” or from a trade or business carried on by it 4 which accrues or arises from the supply of a commodity or service (not being water or electricity) within its own jurisdictional area or from the supply of water or electricity within or outside its own jurisdictional area.” 11. Through the aforementioned amendment (Finance

ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

section 30 of the Copyright Act, which transfers an interest in all or any of the rights contained in sections 14(a) and 14(b) of the Copyright Act, but is a “licence” which imposes restrictions or conditions for the use of computer software. Thus, it cannot be said that any of the EULAs that we are concerned with

M/S D. N. SINGH THROUGH PARTNER DUDHESHWAR NATH SINGH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH

91 10 (2000) 4 SCC 553 32 the decision of the Privy Council in Irrawaddy Flotilla Co. Ltd. v. Bugwandass in which, it was, inter alia, observed as under: “For the present purpose it is not material to inquire how it was that the common law of England came to govern the duties and liabilities of common carriers throughout India

2TATE BANK OF PATIALA, PATIALA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA

The appeals are allowed

91,641/- and Rs.47,16,641, provided for bad and doubtful debts as at the beginning of the relevant accounting year respectively for the assessment years 1971- 72, 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1975- 76 qualified as a reserve for inclusion in the capital of the assessee under Second Schedule ot the companies {Profits) sur-tax, Act,1964." (emphasis supplied

M/S APEX LABORATORIES P. LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT II

The appeal is dismissed without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

91,159/-, which was a crucial omission. Thus, on a holistic reading of the statutes and regulations, Apex could not be allowed to claim deduction under Section 37(1). Analysis and Conclusions 17. An examination of the relevant provisions is first necessary. Section 37 of the IT Act states as follows: Section 37. General.—(1) Any expenditure (not being expenditure

PRIDE FORAMER S.A. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

91 & 98 of 2006 (Assessment Years 1997-98, 1996-97 and 1999-2000, respectively) whereby the High Court set aside the orders passed by the ITAT1 and affirmed the orders passed by CIT (Appeals) whereby the CIT (Appeals) had disallowed the deduction of business expenditure under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act 19612, as well as carrying 1 Income

M/S. MANGALAM PUBLICATIONS, KOTTAYAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM

Bench: This Court & On Leave Being Granted, Civil Appeals Have Been Registered. 3.

91, 1991-92 and 1992-93 at Rs.50,96,041.00. This amount was further apportioned between the three assessment years in proportion to the sales declared by the assessee in the aforesaid assessment years as under: Sr. No. Assessment year Amount 1. 1990-91 Rs.19,05,476.00 2. 1991-92 Rs.16,83,910.00 3. 1992-93 Rs.15,06,655.00 Total