M/S MANGALORE GANESH BEEDI WORKS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MYSORE

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

Sections mentioned above. Feeling aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) who passed an order on 15th October, 1998. The appeal was allowed in part inasmuch as it was held that the Assessee was entitled to a deduction towards legal expenses. However, the claim of the Assessee regarding deduction or depreciation on the Intellectual

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

The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs

section 254(2) which reads as under: "BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL: DELHI BENCHES HON’BLE "A" BENCH (HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT R.M. MEHTA & SH. HON’BLE SH. Y.K.KAPOR) IN THE MATTER OF : M/S SHRIRAM HONDA POWER EQUIPMENTS LTD. ITA NOS. : 5413 & 5414/D/96(A) 5544 & 5545/D/96(D) ASSESSMENT YEARS: 1990-91 & 1991-92 SUB: APPLICATION

VODAFONE IDEA LTD(EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 26 (2)

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

92 CD of the Act was filed by the appellant on 22.02.2017 for AY 2014-15. C] For AY 2016-17, the appellant filed ITR on 30.11.2016 claiming refund of Rs.1128.47 Crores. A notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the appellant on 03.07.2017 for AY 2016-17. D] For AY 2017-18, ITR was filed

KILLICK NIXON LTD., MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMNR. OF INCOME TAX,MUMBAI

In the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High

92 read with Section 91 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998 and the KVSS, 1998 was issued certifying that the appellant had paid towards full and final settlement of the tax arrears determined in the order dated 19.1.1999 on the declaration made by the appellant and granting immunity consequent under the provisions of the Scheme. By an order made

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

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in Sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year). 32 28.4. Thus, Section 147 as it stood at the relevant point of time provides that if the assessing officer has reason to believe that any income

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL vs. DY.COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX & ANR.ETC.ETC

Appeals are allowed accordingly

section 115J(I) (iv) would not be available to such an assessee? (4) In a case where there is profit in a year but after adjustment of depreciation it results in a loss, can no adjustment in book profit under sec.115J of the I.T. Act be allowed?’ This reference was made on 25.9.1992 in the prescribed form

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

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

92 (paragraph 13). It is submitted that as observed and held by this Court in the aforesaid decision, when a question of law arises incidentally or collaterally, having no bearing on the final outcome, it will not be a substantial question of law. It is submitted that in the present case, the Constitution Bench in Anjum M.H. Ghaswala (supra

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

Depreciation Allowance in terms of Section 32 and 43 (3) of the Income Tax Act. Merely by reason of the factum of certain writings on various sheets of papers one cannot ascribe the documentation to be a ’book’: The word ’book’ has not been defined in the Act but the ’book’ in common acceptation is a literary composition from which

SREE AYYANAR SPINNING & WEAVING M.LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, the Civil Appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed with no order

92,239/-. In the process of reworking the computation under http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6 2 Section 115J, the Deputy Commissioner added to the profit the excess depreciation

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

The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent

92 and 1992-93. The core issue is the allowability of investment allowance under Section 32A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the \021Act\022). The assessing officer was of the view that it is only to be allowed in one assessment year and not several assessment years. The Tribunal and the High Court appear to have proceeded

VATSALA SHENOY vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Section 583(4)(a) thereof. The said petition was registered as Company Petition No. 1 of 1988. Significantly, though the firm stood dissolved on December 06, 1987, and thereafter Company Petition No. 1 of 1988 for the winding up proceedings after dissolution was filed in the High Court, the business of the partnership firm continued because of the interim order

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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) 2 vs. M/S MAHAGUN REALTORS (P) LTD

The appeal is allowed, in the above terms, without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

depreciation, etc., are allowed to the transferee. Therefore, unlike a winding up, there is no end to the enterprise, with the entity. The enterprise in the case of amalgamation, continues. 31. In Maruti Suzuki (supra), the scheme of amalgamation was approved on 29.01.2013 w.e.f. 01.04.2012, the same was intimated to the AO on 02.04.2013, and the notice under Section

SUNDARESH BHATT vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

92,29,749 2. 27.05.2019 Non­fulfilment   of   obligations under 37 EPCG Licenses Rs. 151,33,06,859 3. 29.05.2019 Non   clearing   of   imported goods from Jawaharlal Nehru Port   Trust,   Nhava   Sheva, Maharashtra Rs. 22,70,50,898 4. 18.09.2019 Dues for all cargo in custom bounded   warehouses   in Gujarat Rs. 763,12,72,645 9 On 25.02.2020, the NCLT allowed

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS(PREV.), GUJARAT vs. M/S. RELIANCE PETROLEUM LTD

Section 18 of the Act and the goods were released on respondent’s furnishing a bond for a sum of Rs.5,84,32,813 along with a Bank Guarantee of Rs.58,43,281/-. 9. An Appraising Officer valued the said equipment at Rs.11,86,20,000/- as in the year of manufacture. A final assessment was 5 made upon enhancing