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

deductible from the assessable value. By the said decision, the Commissioner (Appeals) disallowed deduction on account of freight, insurance, octroi

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI vs. M/S. PEARL DRINKS LTD

disallowing deductions under the said two heads. It had no occasion to examine the 12 admissibility of the deductions under

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE,INDORE vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD., CHHINDWARA

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

disallowing some of the deductions claimed. Being aggrieved by the said order of disallowing some of the deductions claimed by it, the respondent

M/S MUNJAL SALES CORPORATION vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,LUDHIANA

disallowed by the Department on the ground that the said advances were not given from the firm’s Own Funds but from interest bearing loans taken by the assessee-firm from third parties. Accordingly, the assessee’s claim for deduction

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

deductions, whereas Sections 40 to 43B spell out special provisions, laying out the mechanism for assessments and expressly prescribing conditions for disallowances

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

deduction, if paid before the date for filing the Return of income and necessary evidence of such payment was enclosed with the Return of income. In other words, if contribution stood paid after the date for filing of the Return, it stood disallowed

ESCORTS LTD. vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH

deductibility of that amount, in arriving at the excisable value of the tractors sold to the sub-stockists, that is in question in these appeals. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, initiated the proceedings by issuing a show-cause notice as to why the differential discount should not be "disallowed

THE CITIZEN COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR G.RANGA RAO. HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed reportable

deduction u/s 80P) : Rs. Nil Add: Disallowance u/s 68 as discussed in para no.2, 2.1 and 2.2 above : Rs.38,53,72,794/- Add: Disallowance

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

Appeals are dismissed

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

disallowing   broken   period interest on the footing that it is a capital expenditure is revenue neutral. It was pointed out that if the deduction

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 11 (1) BANGALORE vs. M/S ACE MULTI AXES SYSTEMS LTD

Appeals are disposed of in the same terms

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL

deduction under Section 80 IB(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and directed fresh decision on the said issue vide order dated 16th January, 2009. Thereafter, the Assessing authority on 14th December, 2009 disallowed

M/S. SARAF EXPORTS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR - III

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

disallowed the deductions as claimed. The CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4822 OF 2022 Page 2 of 36 order of the Deputy

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

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

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

disallowed the deduction of business expenditure under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act 19612, as well as carrying 1 Income

JEYAR CONSULTANT & INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,MADRAS

deduction under Section 80-HHC, IT Act in the sum of Rs. 3.78 crores. But, holding that there was a net loss from export of goods, the Assessing Officer disallowed

BHUNA COOP. SUGAR MILLS LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK

deduction. A return claiming similar losses were also filed for the Assessment Year 1993-94. The assessing officer processed the returns filed by the appellant under section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act (the Act) and disallowed

RAMNATH AND CO. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

deduction u/s 80-O as the services made available to the foreign enterprises were rendered in India.” 11 5.7. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the AO disallowed

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

The appeal is dismissed without costs

disallow the deduction allowed earlier and further disallowed the claim for the current year. Questioning the addition to the income

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,NEW DELHI vs. M/S ELI LILLY & COMPANY (INDIA) P.LTD

deduction, the same will be disallowed for such non- deduction of tax at source. 30. The above examples show that