M/S QUEEN'S EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Uttarakhand High Court, Nainital, May Be Gleaned From The Facts Of One Of Them, Namely, The Queen’S Educational Society Case. The Appellant Filed Its Return For Assessment Years 2000-2001 & 2001-2002 Showing A Net Surplus Of Rs.6,58,862/- & Rs.7,82,632/- Respectively. Since The Appellant Was Established With The Sole 2

charitable or religious purposes.— (5) The forms and modes of investing or depositing the money referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (2) shall be the following, namely:— (i) investment in savings certificates as defined in clause (c) of Section 2 of the Government Savings Certificates Act, 1959 (46 of 1959), and any other securities or certificates issued

M/S.RADHA-SAOMI SAT SANG,SAOMI BAGH,AGRA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Charitable and Religious Trust Act, 1920. The question of assessing the income for the first time arose in the assessment year 1937-38. The Income Tax Officer relied upon the observations of the Privy Council and com- pleted assessments for two years being 1937-38 and 1938-39 treating the then Satguru, Sri Madho Prasad Sinha as the assessee

KERALA STATE BEVERAGES MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING CORPORATION LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1)

Accordingly, the civil appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

deduction of surcharge on sales tax.  If the revenue does not consider Section 40(a)(iib) is applicable to the basic sales tax paid by KSBC under Section 5(1)(b) of the KGST Act, it is not known how the surcharge on sales tax, which is nothing but the sales tax, can be brought in the net of Section

PRAKASH NATH KHANNA vs. COMMNR OF INCOME TAX

deducted from that income. (2) In the case of any person who, in the Assessing Officer’s opinion, is assessable under this Act, whether on his own total income or on the total income of any other person during the previous year, the Assessing Officer may, before the end of the relevant assessment year, issue a notice

U.P. FOREST CORPORATION vs. DY. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX

deduction in concerned, the Commissioner declined to decide the said issue. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’ for short) set aside the said order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and held that the Corporation was not a ‘local authority’ and remanded the appeals to the Commissioner (Appeals) for rehearing on merits on the issue of grant of relief relating

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

deductible expenditure. 28. This Court also notices that medical practitioners have a quasi-fiduciary relationship with their patients. A doctor’s prescription is considered the final word on the medication to be availed by the patient, even if the cost of such 25 (2002) 6 SCC 16. 16 medication is unaffordable or barely within the economic reach of the patient

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), KANPUR vs. CANARA BANK

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

deduct income­tax under this section.] [Explanation.­For   the   purposes   of   this section, where any income by way of interest as   aforesaid   is   credited   to   any   account, 10 whether   called   “Interest   payable   account”   or “Suspense   account”   or   by   any   other   name,   in the books of account of the person liable to pay   such   income,   such   crediting   shall   be deemed