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 vs. M/S JINDAL STEEL THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

Appeals are hereby dismissed

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

46 33. Before parting with this issue, we may mention that reliance placed by Mr. Rupesh Kumar, learned counsel for the revenue on the definition of the expression “market value” as defined in the explanation below sub-section (6) of Section 80 A of the Act is totally misplaced inasmuch as sub-section (6) was inserted in the statute with

M/S D. N. SINGH THROUGH PARTNER DUDHESHWAR NATH SINGH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH

46 English Income Tax Act, 1952, is worded differently. But the principles underlying the two statutes are identical. This is clear from the various provisions in that Act. 17. Those observations have to be understood in the context in which they were made. Therein, Their Lordships were considering whether the right of an evacuee in respect of the property left

M/S M.S.SHOES EAST LTD. vs. COMMR.OF CUSTOMS,NEW DELHI

Section 46 of the Act vide M/s. Shah Devchand & Co. and another vs. Union of India and another \026 AIR 1991 SC 1931. Hence, in our opinion, the Tribunal was right in holding that post import depreciation

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

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

46 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified 2. The respondent-assessee is a 100% export-oriented unit and engaged in the business of running a call centre and IT Enabled and Remote Processing Services. Assessee filed its return of income on 31.10.2001 for Assessment Year 2001-2002, declaring loss of Rs.15,47,76,990/- and claimed exemption under Section

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX-I,NEW DELHI vs. VATIKA TOWNSHIP P.LTD

Appeals of the assessees are allowed deleting the surcharge levied by the

depreciation under sub-section (2) of section 32 shall not be set off against the undisclosed income determined in the block assessment under this Chapter, but may be carried forward for being set off in the regular assessments. Civil Appeal No.________ of 2014 & connected matters Page 17 of 57 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 540 of 2009) Page

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS (GENERAL), N. DELHI vs. GUJARAT PERSTORP ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeals are allowed

46 ELT 500, Roto Inks (P) Ltd. vs. Collector of Customs, (1990) 47 ELT 398, Tata Consultancy Service vs. Collector of Customs, (1991) 53 ELT 454, Collector of Customs, Madras vs. Tata Elxsi India Ltd., (1995) 78 ELT 370, Laakshmi Cement vs. Collector of Customs, New Delhi, (1996) 84 ELT 271, were correct. CEGAT proceeded to state that after

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

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

46 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified 2 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, Cochin (‘Tribunal’ hereinafter) had decided in favour of the assessee by setting aside the orders of reassessment. However, the High Court of Kerala in appeals filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Act has reversed the findings of the Tribunal by deciding the appeals preferred

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

depreciation and allowances are dealt with in Section 32. Therefore, Parliament has used the expression “any expenditure” in Section 37 to cover both. Therefore, the expression “expenditure” as used in Section 37 may, in 11 the circumstances of a particular case, cover an amount which is really a “loss” even though the said amount has not gone out from

MCORP GLOBAL PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD

Accordingly, the civil appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed with no order as to costs

Bench: Coming To The Facts, The Following Is The Relationship Between The Parties: - M/S Glass & Ceramic Decorators Was The Manufacturer Of Soft Drink Bottles. - Assessee Was The ‘Lessor’. - M/S Coolade Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Was The ‘Lessee’. 4. During The Relevant Assessment Year, The Assessee Carried On The Business Of Trading In Lamination Machines & Binding & Punching Machines. In Addition, It Was Also Engaged In The Leasing Business. During The Year In Question, The Assessee Had Bought 5,46,000 Soft Drink Bottles From M/S Glass & Ceramic Decorators Worth Rs. 19,54,953/-. The Bottles Were Directly Supplied To M/S Coolade Beverages Pvt. Ltd. (“M/S Coolade” For Short) In Terms Of Lease Dated 15.2.1991. Vide Assessment Order Dated 28.3.1994, The Ao Found That M/S Coolade Had Received Only 42,000 Bottles Out Of The Total Of 2

depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“1961 Act” for short) in respect of two separate transactions dated 15.2.1991 and 15.3.1991. The impugned judgment has been rendered in respect of Assessment Year 1991-92 (corresponding to the previous year ending 31.3.1991). (A) Facts Regarding Lease dated 15.2.1991 (Transaction No. I): 3. Before coming

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

depreciation and ITC. 29. Now we come to sub-Section (4) of Section 16. Before the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2022, the sub-section read thus: “16. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. (4) A registered person shall not be entitled to take input tax credit in respect of any invoice or debit note for supply of goods or services or both after

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SHIMLA vs. M/S AARHAM SOFTRONICS

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

depreciation in any year. With an expansion of such a nature not only there would be increase in production but generation of more employment as well, which would benefit the local populace. It is for this reason, carrying out substantial expansion by itself is treated as ‘initial assessment year’. It would mean that even when an old unit completes substantial

SUNDARESH BHATT vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

depreciation. From the viewpoint of creditors, a good realisation can generally be obtained if the firm is sold as a going concern. Hence, when delays induce liquidation, there is value destruction. Further, even in liquidation, the realisation is lower when there are delays. Hence, delays cause value destruction. Thus, achieving a high recovery rate is primarily about identifying and combating

MANSAROVAR COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI

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

46 of 67 the affairs of the 5 entities could not be made good by offering either of them for examination. d) Once documents were seized and statements were recorded from various persons, the burden gets shifted to the assessees to produce some evidence to counter the picture and, the court found that its extremely unusual that the seals

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PARASRAMPURIA SYNTHETICS LTD

46 volumes contained textual materials with a few drawings and designs. The Commissioner of Customs in his elaborate and considered order dated 31.10.1997, while referring to the various documents and statements of various persons/directors of the assessee, in para 63 has stated thus:- "63. In this case, the statements of Shri Om Prakash Parasrampuria, Director, Dr. S.C. Rustagi & Shri Alok

NAVIN JINDAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

46 of 1973); (iii) the conversion of Indian currency into foreign currency and the reconversion of foreign currency into Indian currency shall be at the rate of exchange prescribed in this behalf; [b] where the capital gain arises from the transfer of a long-term capital asset (hereafter in this section referred to, respectively, as long-term capital gain

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX vs. M/S ADANI GAS LTD

The appeal is allowed in the above terms

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

46,411/- to Rs. 2,52,73,526/-. Penalties were imposed under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act 1994. 7 The respondent assailed the order of adjudication before the Tribunal. By its judgment dated 05 April 2019, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the respondent. The Tribunal observed that the SKID equipment is installed by the respondent

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

depreciation in investments in the Balance Sheet under “Current Liabilities and Provisions” and that such provision for each year shall be debited to P&L Account so that a true and correct figure of “Net Profit” gets reflected in the financial accounts of the company. The effect of such Disclosure is to increase the current liabilities by showing the provision