KERALA STATE BEVERAGES MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING CORPORATION LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1)

Accordingly, the civil appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

disallowed   under   the   said   provision.   Therefore   the disallowance made in this regard is liable to be set aside

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

disallowed by the Department for the AY 1992-93. However, vide order dated 3.1.03, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance

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

disallowed on the ground that borrowed funds were used for non-business purposes. Thus the amount of disallowance

.M. SALGAOCAR & BORS. VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly Civil Appeal No. 657 of 1994 is allowed and Civil Appeal Nos

disallowance under Section 40A(S) would be on par with the disallowance under Section 36(l)(iii) which

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

disallowance of interest (Rs. 27,14,00.00), disallowance of depreciation (Rs. 2,18,000.00) and disallowance in respect

SHAH ORIGINALS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 24 MUMBAI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI

disallowed. The assessee, aggrieved by the disallowance, filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who dismissed

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

disallowed. Accordingly, he disallowed a sum of Rs. 5, 66, 729/- . The assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner

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

disallowed and why interest should not be taxed as receipt on the revenue account. It is contended by the assessee

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS MARUTI UDYOG LTD.) vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN

disallowed the claim of deduction of Rs.69,93,00,428/­ as well as   Rs.3,08,99,171/­.   Aggrieved   by   the   assessment

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

The appeals are allowed

disallowed the expenses for the Assessment Year 1996-97 on the ground that the share issue expenses are not eligible

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

M/S GANAPATHY & CO.BANGALORE vs. COMMR.INCOME TAX,BANGALORE

The appeal is dismissed

Disallowance of Service charges For the Assessment Year in question i.e. 1984-1985, the assessee claimed the benefit of disallowance

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

disallowance except for two items. The effect of the said disallowance had not according to the Board been

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR vs. MCDOWELL & CO. LTD

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: The High Court Are As Follows: (1) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The I.T.A.T. Was Justified In Holding That The Unpaid Amount Of Bottling Fee Has, On Furnishing Of The Bank Guarantee, To Be Treated As Actual Payment & Accordingly Allowing The Deduction In Respect Of The Same Under Section 43B Of The Act, Even Though The Sum Has Not Been Actually Paid Before The Due Date Of Filing The Return Under Section 139(1) Of The Act. (2) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The I.T.A.T. Was Justified In Allowing The Depreciation On Research & Development Assets Which Related To The Closed Business Of Fast Food Division/Unit Of The Assessee-Company As Such Not Used During The Previous Year? (3) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The I.T.A.T. Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.2,77,887/- 2

disallowance of landscaping expenses not recovered u/s Section 35(1)(iv) of the Income Tax Act by wrongly relying

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (IT)-I, MUMBAI vs. M/S. AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

disallowable amount is to be computed. The expenditure to be disallowed is the difference between the expenditure in the nature

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

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

disallows any expenditure incurred by an assessee for any purpose which is an offence or is prohibited by law, which

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Disallowance of unpaid statutory liability - Section 43B *** 35.2 Several cases have come to notice where taxpayers do not discharge

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

disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 18,04,572/- under the First Transaction but we disallow the depreciation of Rs. 30,17,122/- under