PRAKASH NATH KHANNA vs. COMMNR OF INCOME TAX

short the ’Old Act’) which are in pari-materia of Section 139(1) and Section 139(4) of the Act. It follows that return was furnished in "the due time" and consequently Section 276CC is not attracted. 2. The provisions of Section 276CC(i) are not intended to apply to the cases of assessees who have been regularly assessed

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

capital is held by the en­ tity referred to in clause (i) or clause (ii) (whether singly or taken together); (iv)  a company or corporation in which the State Gov­ ernment has the right to appoint the majority of the   directors   or   to   control   the   management   or policy decisions, directly or indirectly, including by   virtue   of   its   shareholding   or   management

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

gains of business or profession”. [Explanation 1].—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any expenditure incurred by an assessee for any purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law shall not be deemed to have been incurred for the purpose of business or profession and no deduction or allowance shall be made