M/S.SHASUN CHEMICALS AND DRUGS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

The appeals are allowed

cash to the concerned employees. Herein again CIT(A) allowed the expenditure and the same view was taken by the ITAT but the High Court has reversed the view of ITAT on this ground also. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that two questions were formulated in the judgment of the High Court which need to be addressed and answered

SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

depositing the same in the Government account. In reply, by its letters dated 12.11.2007 and 15.11.2007, the appellant contended, inter alia, that the trucks hired were belonging to different operators/owners who were not the sub-contractors or contractors; that they came from different parts of India and mostly required cash payment for diesel and other running expenses; that the appellant

M/S. PUROLATOR INDIA LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-III

Appeal is disposed of accordingly

cash price for which an article of the like kind and quality is sold or is capable of being sold at the time of the removal of the article chargeable with duty from the factory or any other premises of manufacture or production, or if a whole the 10 Page 11 JUDGMENT place of manufacture or production

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

deposits from the public. The said 1998 Directions touch various aspects such as income recognition; asset classification; provisioning, etc. As stated above, basis of the 1998 Directions is that anticipated losses must be taken into account but expected income need not be taken note of. Therefore, these Directions ensure cash liquidity for NBFCs which are now required to state true

S.A. BUILDERS LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

cash credit account of the assessee in which there was a huge debit balance. He, therefore, held that since the assessee had diverted its borrowed funds to a sister concern without charging any interest, proportionate interest relating to the said amount out of the total interest paid to the bank deserved to be disallowed. Accordingly, he disallowed

CHECKMATE SERVICES P LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

deposit of employees' contribution under the relevant acts / regulations are follows: A. EPF Scheme: Chapter VI: Declaration, Contribution Cards, and Returns 38. Mode of payment of contributions 6 Second proviso w.e.f. 1989. 6 “(1) The employer shall, before paying the member his wages in respect of any period or part of period for which contribution are payable, deduct the employee

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ALOM EXTRUCTIONS LIMITED

cash, the sum has been realised within fifteen days from the due date.” On reading the above provisions, it becomes clear that the assessee(s)-employer(s) would be entitled to deduction only if the contribution stands credited on or before the due date given in the Provident Fund Act. However, the second proviso once again created further difficulties

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELGAUM vs. M/S. AKAY COSMETICS PVT. LTD

disallowing deduction in respect of freight, insurance, handling charges from the assessable value. In this connection, it was further urged that it was not open to the department to adopt the price of M/s Nemaru as the basis of assessable value and at the same time deny deduction therefrom on the basis of the clearance of the product from

THE MAVILAYI SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CALICUT

Bench: Us, The Assessing Officer Denied Their Claims For Deduction, Relying Upon Section 80P(4) Of The It Act, Holding That As Per The Audited Receipt & 2

disallow deductions claimed under section 80P of the IT Act, notwithstanding that mere nomenclature or registration certificates issued under the Kerala Act would show that the assessees are primary agricultural credit societies. These divergent decisions led to a reference order dated 09.07.2018 to a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court. 4 5. The Full Bench of the Kerala High

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 6 vs. KHYATI REALTORS PVT. LTD

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

deposited with one M/s C. Bhansali Developers Pvt. Ltd. towards acquisition of commercial premises two years prior to the assessment year in question (i.e., in 2007). It was contended that the project did not appear to make any progress, and consequently, the assessee sought return of the amounts from the builder. However, the latter did not respond. As a result

M/S POLYFLEX (INDIA) PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARNATAKA

The appeal is dismissed without costs

cash or in any other manner whatsoever, any amount in respect of such loss or expenditure or some benefit in respect of such trading liability by way of remission or cessation thereof, the amount obtained by him or the value of benefit accruing to him, shall be deemed to be profits and gains of business or profession and accordingly chargeable

ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

cash or by issue of a cheque or draft or by any other mode, whichever is earlier, deduct income tax thereon at the rate of ten percent” 29. It is in this context that this Court referred to the judgment in GE Technology (supra) (see paragraph 16) and distinguished the same, stating: “16.1 The submission that unless permission was obtained

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

deposit GST on rent without deducting ITC because of the exception carved out by Section 17(5)(d). 3. The first respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court of Orissa seeking a declaration that Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act and the corresponding provisions of the Orissa Goods and Services Act, 2017 do not apply

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE vs. DAI ICHI KARKARIA LTD

The appeals are dismissed

deposited without payment of duty. from where such goods are removed; (c) related person means a person who is so associated with the assessee that they have interest, directly or indirectly, in the business of each other and includes a holding company, a subsidiary company, a relative and a distributor of the assessee, and any sub-distributor of such distributor