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

The appeal is allowed without

loss carried forward, relief claimed in the return which on the basis of the information as available in such returns accounts or documents were prima facie inadmissible was to be disallowed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JAIPUR vs. PRAKASH CHAND LUNIA (D) THR LRS

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

forward in support of the claim for deduction: (1) that the loss sustained by reason of embezzlement is a bad debt allowable under s. 10(2)(xi) of the Act; (2) that it is a business expense falling within s. 10(2)(xv) of the Act; and (3) that it is a trading loss, which must be taken into account

THE BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA

forward the loss to the subsequent year or years and set off the said loss   against   the   profit   in   the   business.   Be   it noted   that   clause   (2)   of   Section   24,   in contradistinction   to   clause   (1)   thereof,   is concerned only with the business and not with its heads under Section 6 of the Act. Section 24,      Civil Appeal No.3291

M/S DALMIA POWER LTD. vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA

losses   in   the   current   year,   to   be   carried   forward, amounting to Rs.1105,93,91,494/­. 2.8 The Appellants submit that the revised Returns were filed after the due date for filing revised Returns of Income   u/S.   139(5)   for   the   Assessment   Year   2016­ 2017   since   the   NCLT   passed   the   final   Order   on 01.05.2018. Consequentially, it was an impossibility to file

BASIR AHMED SISODIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal is allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR

loss carried forward, deduction, allowance or relief claimed in the return, which, on the basis of the information available in such return, accounts   or   documents,   is  prima   facie inadmissible, shall be disallowed

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

disallowed in the subsequent year, in the case of the then transferee company. The decision of the Delhi High Court, in Spice (supra), after discussing the decision in Saraswati Syndicate, went on to explain why assessing an amalgamating company, without framing the order in the name of the transferee company is fatal: “10. Section 481 of the Companies Act provides

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

loss carried forward, deduction, allowance or relief claimed in the return, which, on the basis of the information available in such return, accounts or documents, is prima facie inadmissible, shall be disallowed

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

loss carried forward, deduction, allowance or relief claimed in the return, which, on the basis of the information available in such return, accounts or documents, is prima facie inadmissible, shall be disallowed

IPCA LABORATORY LTD. vs. DY. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

disallowed the deduction of Rs. 3.78 crores. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the Appeal filed by the Appellants on 11th October, 1999. On 29th December, 2000 the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Second Appeal. By the impugned Judgment the Bombay High Court has dismissed the Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. The question for consideration

PRIDE FORAMER S.A. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

disallowed deduction of business expenditure as well as carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation on the ground that the appellant was not carrying on any business 3 Hereinafter, ‘Department’. 4 Hereinafter, ‘AO’. Page 4 of 13 during the relevant assessment years. The findings of the AO were upheld by CIT (Appeals). FINDINGS OF THE ITAT: 4. ITAT, however, reversed the findings

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

carried forward the unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 15,53,487.72 (Rs. 1,47,97,995.01 \026 Rs. 1,32,44,507.29 = Rs. 15,53,487.72) to the following year. By the assessment order dated 30.03.1999, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax assessed the appellant’s income at a figure of Rs. 47,03,120.00. This was because: (i) Disallowance

JT.COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,SURAT vs. SAHELI LEASING & INDUSTRIES LTD

Appeals stand allowed as mentioned hereinabove but with

disallowed out of depreciation. Penalty proceedings under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act were initiated. In response to the show cause notice issued by the Revenue, Assessee filed its reply denying the allegations and contending that no penalty can be imposed on it, when returned income was NIL. 15. Penalty was sought to be imposed in respect

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

carried forward as unmatured finance charges; and (b) the depreciated value of the underlying asset, shall be provided for. 26 Explanation For the purpose of this paragraph, (1) the depreciated value of the asset shall be notionally computed as the original cost of the asset to be reduced by depreciation at the rate of twenty per cent per annum

SHITAL FIBERS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA

disallowed. 7. The appeal preferred by the appellant against the said Order was dismissed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). In appeal preferred by the appellant before the ITAT, the appellant was unsuccessful. Thereafter, an appeal was 3 304 ITR 319 Civil Appeal No.14318 of 2015 etc. Page 3 of 20 preferred before the Punjab and Haryana High Court which

DILIP N. SHROFF vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI &ANR

The appeal is allowed

loss of Rs.34,12,000/- and claimed carry forward thereof to the subsequent year as against taxable long term capital gain of Rs.3,09,78,428/- . The disclosure made of the particulars of income in the return under the head capital gain by the assessee is certainly incorrect for which the impugned penalty is exigible. The assessee cannot take shelter

THE COMMNR.OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. M/S.SARAVANA SPINNING MILLS PVT. LTD

Appeals stand allowed with no order as to costs

Loss account for the year ending 31.3.1994. The return for the assessment year 1993-94 was filed on 31.12.1993. It was processed under Section 143(1)(a). Subsequently, a Notice under Section 143(2) was issued to the assessee. Pursuant to the said Notice, the representative of the assessee appeared. He contended that during the previous year, the assessee

SHARP BUSINESS SYSTEM THR. FINANCE DIRECTOR MR. YOSHIHISA MIZUNO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III N.D

The appeals are hereby disposed of in terms of

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA

disallowable on an application of the test of enduring benefit. If the advantage consists merely in facilitating the assessee’s trading operations or enabling the management and conduct of the assessee’s business to be carried on more efficiently or more profitably while leaving the fixed capital untouched, the expenditure would be on revenue account, even though the advantage

NATIONAL CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V, DELHI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL

disallowable on an application of this test. If the advantage consists merely in facilitating the assessee’s trading operations or enabling the management and conduct of the assessee’s business to be carried on more effectively or more profitably while leaving the fixed capital untouched, the expenditure would be on the revenue account, even though the advantage may endure