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

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

145: “(1) Income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" or "Income from other sources" shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), be computed in accordance with either cash or mercantile system of accounting regularly employed by the assessee. (2) The Central Government may notify in the Official Gazette from time to time accounting

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

145 shall, so far as may be, apply;...” [Emphasis supplied] 17. Section 158B of the Act, which encompasses the crux of the issue, reads as follows: “Definitions. 158B. In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires, - (a) "block period" means the previous years relevant to ten assessment years preceding the previous year in which the search was conducted under section

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

145 of the IT Act. In this connection, the appellant submitted that it was bound to follow the method of accounting prescribed by RBI in terms of Paras 8 and 9 of the Prudential Norms 1998. As per the said method of accounting, the “Provision for NPA” actually represented depreciation in the value of the assets and, consequently

HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD. vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,DELHI

The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs

depreciation was allowable even on notional increase in the cost of the asset on account of exchange rate fluctuation and despite the fact that the additional liability resulting from the said fluctuation had not been paid by the assessee. It was held that the word "paid" in section 43(2) meant amount actually paid or incurred according to the method

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

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

145, 24 147, 148, 149 and 151 of the Act, both pre 01.04.1989 and post 01.04.1989. He submits that there was admittedly non-disclosure of material facts by the assessee, and, therefore, the extended period under the proviso to Section 147 of the Act was available to the department. Viewed in the above context, the notices issued under Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS vs. M/S. LUCAS T.V.S. LTD. PADI CHENNAI

The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent

depreciation in respect of such machinery or plant has been allowed or is allowable under the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or this Act in computing the total income of any person for any period prior to the date of the installation of the machinery or plant by the assessee, (2) An industrial undertaking

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VI vs. VIRTUAL SOFT SYSTEMS LTD

The appeal is hereby dismissed leaving parties to bear their own cost

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL

2) This batch of appeals has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 07.02.2012 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in ITA Nos. 216, 398, 403, 404 and 680 of 2011 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court upheld the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short ‘the Tribunal’) dated

EAST INDIA HOTELS LTD., CALCUTTA vs. COMNR. OF INCOME TAX, CALCUTTA

Appeal is allowed accordingly

Section 263 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1977-78?" "2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to extra depreciation allowance and also extra shift depreciation allowance on the reasoning that there was no prohibition for granting

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI vs. M/S. BUREAU VERITAS

2 lakhs on Bureau Veritas. After confirmation of duty he directed appropriation of Rs.10 crores against the same. Payment of interest @ 24% under Section 28 AB of the Act was demanded from July 2000. Penalty of Rs. 29,45,19,057 was imposed and separate penalties under section 112(a) of the Act were imposed on Bureau Veritas and Jean