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, DELHI vs. M/S WOODWARD GOVERNOR INDIA P. LTD

3) Where the Assessing Officer is not satisfied about the correctness or completeness of the accounts of the assessee, or where the method of accounting provided in sub-section (1) or accounting standards as notified under sub-section (2), have not been regularly followed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer may make an assessment in the manner provided in section

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

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

3) of section 143 14 Page 15 JUDGMENT section 144 and section 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

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

depreciable assets, capital gains, etc. which items are all credited to P&L Account, but, which are exempted under the IT Act would become taxable income which is not the intention of Section 45Q of the IT Act. That, the said 1998 Directions cannot be taken as an excuse by the NBFC to compute lower taxable income under

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

Section 145(3) of the IT Act. Further, it was submitted that the lease equalization charge was nothing but a method of adjusting the depreciation

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

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

145,18,93,375 and confirmed the demand for differential duty which was worked out at Rs.29.45 crores. The Commissioner held the importer - assessee guilty of suppression of facts and misdeclaration of values. Bureau Veritas and Jean Paul Rabier were guilty of aiding and abetting assessee-importer. Accordingly, Commissioner directed confiscation under Section 113(m) of the Act. Before