KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE

The appeal is allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

disallowances based on which the assessment already concluded for the assessment years 1994-1995 to 1996-1997 were proposed to be reopened

ASST. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS vs. THANTHI TRUST

disallow the claim of the Trust for exemption under Section 4(3)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 for the Assessment Years 1955-56 to 1961-62. The Trust challenged the correctness of the tentative decision by filing a writ petition in the High Court of Judicature at Madras. On 25th June, 1961 the trustees of the Trust took

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

The appeal is allowed without

reopened the assessment by issuing a notice in terms of Section 148 of the Act on the ground that it has reason to believe that the income assessable to tax had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act. The respondent asked for the reason for re-opening the assessment. On 31.5.2004 a return of income declaring

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 MUMBAI vs. M/S. ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

reopening the assessments, the Central Board of Direct Taxes came with a clarification vide Circular No. 11 of 2001 dated 23.07.2001.  Para 4 of the Circular stated as follows:­ “The Board have considered this matter and hereby directs that the assessments where the proceedings have become final before the first day of April, 2001 should not be re­opened under section

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 3 vs. ABHISAR BUILDWELL P. LTD

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

reopen entire assessment and undertake Assessmen t u/s 153A could only be done in respect of issue A relating to which incriminatin g material is found during search. On conclusion of assessmen t u/s 153A, Revenue may, basis other information, proceed u/s 147 and/or 263. CA No. 6580/2021 Etc. Page 39 of 59 roving/fishing enquiries. 4.2 Learned counsel

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 under Rule 6D to the extent of Rs. 31,963.00." Being aggrieved by the decision of the CIT (Appeals), the assessee carried an appeal before the Income Tax Tribunal in respect of premium, depreciation and interest, which together represented an amount of Rs. 32,84,153.00. http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6 Pursuant

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

MANSAROVAR COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI

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

Assessment Years in question under different heads of income, namely, (i) income from commission (ii) unsecured loan from Dengzong Charitable Trust (iii) interest accrued/paid on the unsecured loans and (iv) provision for income tax (which was disallowed). Separate penalty proceedings were initiated under sections 271(1)(a). 271(1)(c), 273/274 and 271-B of the Act. 2.12 The assessees

NATIONAL PETROLEUM CONSTRUCTION COMPANY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(2) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION NEW DELHI

Appeal is hereby allowed to the extent

Bench: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE

disallowing exemptions wrongly claimed. Thereafter, the recovery can be made by an order of the competent officer as per Second Schedule of the IT Act read with Sections 222 and 276 alongwith Sections 220 & 221 with interest and penalty. Thus,  in  my   considered   view  the   issuance   of   the  certificate under Section 197(1) is based on the existing and estimated

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

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

reopen a contention made by the Revenue in the earlier round of litigation in GE Technology (supra) which led to this Court framing the question of law and sending it back to the High Court to decide “on merits”. He sought to argue, based in particular on Article 30 of the India-USA DTAA, that the DTAA’s provisions