CHECKMATE SERVICES P LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

13 said sum so received by the due date so defined under the respective statutes, the same was allowed as deduction while computing the income under the provisions of the IT Act. Therefore, Section 36 (1)(va) of the IT Act had limited operation to allow such sum so received from the employees. The deduction from the employees’ salary

RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD JAIPUR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (ASSESSMENT)

In the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI

E N T ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. This appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the Division Bench judgment dated 13.11.2007 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur by which D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.837 of 1993 filed by the Revenue has been allowed upholding the demand of additional tax under Section 143(1

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S WOODWARD GOVERNOR INDIA P. LTD

13 Central Government is empowered to notify from time to time the Accounting Standards to be followed by any class of assessees or in respect of any class of income. Accordingly, under Section 209 of the Companies Act, mercantile system of accounting is made mandatory for companies. In other words, accounting standard which is continuously adopted by an assessee

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

e. Section 17(5)(c) and (d) remain vague due to the absence of definitions of the expressions “on its own account” and “plant or machinery”. The distinction between the expression “plant and machinery” used in Section 17(5)(c) and the expression “plant or machinery” used in Section 17(5)(d) has not been clarified by the Government. Therefore

M/S. SOUTHERN TECHNOLOGIES LTD. vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, COIMBATORE

13 can be no debit to the reserve. Under the vertical system, “profits available for appropriation” are post-tax profits. Appropriation to reserves can be made only when there is a surplus. 5. Under Clause 7(1)(a) of Part – III of Schedule VI of Companies Act, 1956 – provision, inter alia, is to provide for depreciation, renewals or diminution

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS PVT.LTD

The appeal is allowed without

E N T CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2830 OF 2007 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.24482 of 2005) Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal filed by the revenue is to the correctness of the decision rendered by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court allowing the Special Civil Application filed by the appellant

M/S. G.K. CHOKSI & CO. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, GUJARAT

E N T CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 7486 of 2001 BHAN, J. 1. The present appeal has been directed against the final judgment and order dated 16th August, 2001 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Income Tax Reference No. 194/86 whereby the High Court has upheld the order passed by the Tribunal to the effect that

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

E N T S.H. KAPADIA, J. Leave granted. 2. In this batch of Civil Appeals, pertaining to assessment years 1990-91 to 1998-99, the question which arises for determination is: whether the concept of “balancing charge” in Section 41(2) could be read into Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 3. In this batch of civil

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

E)70, Bureau of Indian Standards v. DGIT(E)71 and GS1 India v. DGIT(E)72. 66. Mr. Ajay Vohra, learned senior counsel, appearing for the Apparel Export Promotion Council (AEPC) urged that it is a non-profit organization set up with approval of the Central Government, for promotion of exports of garments from India (i.e., promotion of trade

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

E N T With C.A. No. 345 of 2006, C.A. No. 1340 of 2006, C.A. No. 3390 of 2006, C.A.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

e) the amount or amounts of dividends paid or proposed; or (f) the amount or amounts of expenditure relatable to any income to which any of the provisions of Chapter III applies; if any amount referred to in clauses (a) to (f) is debited to the profit and loss account, and as reduced by,— (i) the amount withdrawn from

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. CORE HEALTH CARE LTD

E N T CIVIL APPEAL NOS.3952-3955 OF 2002 WITH Civil Appeal Nos. 8509-10 of 2002 Commissioner of Income Tax, Baroda \005 Appellant (s) versus M/s. Core Health Care Ltd. ... Respondent (s) KAPADIA, J. For the sake of convenience we state the facts occurring in Civil Appeal Nos.3952-55 of 2002 \026 Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Ahmedabad v. M/s. Core

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S JINDAL STEEL THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

Appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

E N T Digitally signed by Neetu Sachdeva Date: 2023.12.06 17:23:35 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified 2 UJJAL BHUYAN, J. There are three special leave petitions in this batch, viz., SLP (C) No.15564 of 2020, SLP (C) No.5871 of 2020 and SLP (C) No.792 of 2021. Leave in these special leave petitions are therefore granted. 2. Core issue

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I vs. M/S RELIANCE ENERGY LTD (FORMERLY BSES LTD.) THROUGH ITS M.D

The Appeal is dismissed qua the issue of the extent of deduction under

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO

depreciation. 2 | P a g e The Assessing Officer considered the revised claim of the Assessee under Section 80-IA and determined the amount eligible for deduction under Section 80-IA at Rs. 492,78,60,973/- against the Assessee’s claim of Rs. 546,26,01,224/-. However, the Assessing Officer stated in the assessment order that the actual

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,SIMLA vs. M/S GREEN WORLD CORPORATION

Appeals are disposed of with the aforementioned directions

13 still at certain points in para 16 and particularly in para 41 this Court has not specifically said that these observations are based on the interpretation of the said note and one may gather an impression (from some of the observations, about which there is no specific reference) that the same are the Court’s own observations/findings

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III, BANGALORE vs. M/S WIPRO LIMITED

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

E N T M.R. SHAH, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 30.11.2020 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Income Tax Appeal No. 462/2017, by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the Revenue and has confirmed the judgment and order dated 25.11.2016 passed

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE

The appeal is allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

E N T NAGARATHNA, J. This appeal has been filed assailing the judgment dated 06.07.2012, passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore, in Writ Appeal No. 2458 of 2010 whereby the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 20.05.2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 12239 of 2008, remanding the matter to the Settlement Commission to determine afresh

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. A.R. ENTERPRISES

e. M/s A.R. Enterprises, were seized. On scrutiny, the Assessing Officer found that though the assessee had taxable income for the assessment year 1995-96, no return of income had been filed (due to be filed on or before 31st October, 1995) till the date of search. Based on the material seized by virtue of the aforesaid search, the Assessing