SHIV RAJ GUPTA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI IV

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

natural justice. The above parameters within which the High Court has to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC should always be borne in mind. We are sorry to state that the above aspects are seldom borne in mind in many cases and second appeals are entertained and/or disposed of, without conforming to the above discipline.” This statement

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) KOLKATA vs. JAGANNATH GUPTA FAMILY TRUST

Appeal is allowed, with directions as indicated

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

natural justice. It was also the case of the respondent, that though a statement of the representative of the donor was recorded and on the said basis proceedings were initiated for cancellation of registration, but the respondent was not given any opportunity, to cross examine such representative. 6. After receipt of the explanation to the show-cause notice, alleging that

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

The appeal is allowed

nature and the burden is on the Department to prove that a particular amount is a revenue receipt. It would be perfectly legitimate to say that the mere fact that the explanation of the assessee is false does not necessarily give rise to the inference that the disputed amount represents income. It cannot be said that the finding given

KIRLOSKAR BROS. LTD. vs. COMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE

disallowance of the lower price on the ground that the bulk buyers did not constitute a different class of buyers and cannot be distinguished from other wholesale buyers; there cannot be more than one price for the same class of buyers. In the notice it was alleged that the claim for lower price on the ground that the bulk buyers

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

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

nature of the head office expenditure but, even assuming the entirety of the expenditure falls within the definition of head office expenditure, the same is not attributable to the business of the assessee in India but, is in fact exclusively incurred for the business operations in India. It is this distinction between ‘expenditure attributable to business in India’ and Civil

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

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

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

disallowed some of the deductions claimed by the respondent including the deductions in regard to damages. Having failed in the appeal before the Appellate Authority, the respondent approached the Tribunal once again and the Tribunal by the impugned order allowed the appeal of the respondent once again solely relying on its judgments in Assam Valley and Tungbhadra Industries cases (supra

M/S.SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDAL LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE &CUSTOMS

disallowing the claim was not proper and accordingly it was set aside. Regarding the claim being barred by limitation, it was observed that since the sugar year was over on September 30, 1976, the claim was required to be submitted within six months. But the claim was submitted on 14th August, 1978, and hence, it was barred by limitation

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY

nature of stock in trade. The ITAT then noticed that assessee bank is having surplus funds and reserves from which investments can be made. Accordingly, it accepted the assessee’s case that investments were not made out of interest or cost bearing funds alone. In consequence, it was held by the ITAT that disallowance under Section 14A is not warranted

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

Appeal is disposed of accordingly

disallowed only because they are not payable at the time of each invoice or deducted from the invoice price.” (at para 1) 16. In the second judgment in Government of India v. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd., 1995 (77) ELT 433 (SC), what has been held is as follows:- “Year Ending Discount and Prompt Payment Discount: What is called 'Year-ending

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. M/S. GENERAL INSURANCE CORPN.OF INDIA

Disallowance of Rs. 1,04,28,500/- in respect of stamp duty and registration fees incurred in connection with the increase in the authorized share capital were bifurcated by the CIT (Appeals) into two categories, one relating to the increase in authorized share capital from Rs. 75 crores to Rs. 250 crores and second relating to issue of bonus shares

M/S.L.R.BROTHERS,INDO FLORA LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR vs. COMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

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

disallow the appeal.” 9 6. The matter was further carried in appeal before CESTAT whereat the impugned order was passed confirming the order of the   authorities   below   whilst   also   holding   that   amendment notification is prospective and cannot be applied to the present case. The relevant extract of the impugned order is reproduced below: “5. We have  carefully  considered the submissions

M/S. KERALA ROAD LINES vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN

The appeal is dismissed accordingly

justice? The questions referred to the High Court in ITR No.310 of 1999 at the instance of th e assessee were answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee relying upon its ow n earlier decision dated 31.10.2001 passed in ITR Nos.61/1997, 275/1999 and O.P.No.20583 of 1996. It is brought to our notice that against the relied

WIPRO FINANCE LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed

nature of the advantage in a commercial sense and it is only where the advantage is in the capital field that the expenditure would be 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

M/S APEX LABORATORIES P. LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT II

The appeal is dismissed without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

disallow an assessee from claiming a tax benefit for its participation in an illegal activity. Though the memorandum to the Finance Bill, 1998 elucidated the ambit of Explanation 1 to include “protection money, extortion, hafta, bribes, etc.”, yet, ipso facto, by no means is the embargo envisaged restricted to those examples. It is but logical that when acceptance of freebies

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

nature of trade, commerce or business or rendering service in relation thereto is barred. Reliance was placed upon judgments in Dir. Of Supp. & Disp. v. Board of Revenue76 which follows H. Abdul Bakhi & Bros (supra), Barendra Prasad Ray v. ITO77 and State of Gujarat v. Raipur Manufacturing Co. Ltd.78 to argue that in “business” there must be some real

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

disallowed under Section 43-B which, as stated above, was inserted with effect from 1-4-1984 *** 22. It is important to note once again that, by the Finance Act, 2003, not only is the second proviso deleted but even the first proviso is sought to be amended by bringing about a uniformity in tax, duty, cess

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

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

disallowable under Explanation 1 to Section 37(1). It is submitted that thus either way, neither can the Respondent- Assessee claim business loss due to him not being in the smuggling business nor can he claim business expenditure as the same is prohibited under Explanation 1 to Section 37(1). 3.6 Making above submissions and relying upon the above submissions