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

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

12 of 27 Section 69A cannot be applied in his case may not be accepted. 3.4 It is submitted by learned ASG that assessee shall also not be permitted to claim such loss as a business expenditure in view of the express prohibition under Explanation 1 to Section 37(1) of the Act which was added w.e.f.01.04.1962. Reliance is placed

MADHAV PRASAD JATIA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, U.P., LUCKNOW

section 10(2) (iii) and 10(2) (xv) and disallowed the claim for deduction under these provisions principally on the ground that the said borrowing of Rs. 5.5 lacs was unrelated http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 12

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY

12. The sub-Section (2) and (3) were introduced to the main section by the Finance Act, 2006 with effect from 01.04.2007. 13. The question therefore to be answered is whether Section 14A, enables the Department to make disallowance on expenditure incurred for earning tax free income in cases where assessees like the present appellant, do not maintain separate accounts

SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

12. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and the observations occurring in the orders impugned, the principal questions arising for determination in this appeal could be stated as follows:- 1. As to whether Section 194C of the Act does not apply to the present case? 2. As to whether disallowance under Section

COMMNR.,CENTRAL EXCISE, MADRAS vs. M/S. ADISON & CO. LTD

Bench: Us Because Of An Order Dated 16.07.2008, By Which There Was A Reference To A Larger Bench In View Of The Importance Of The Questions Involved. 2. Civil Appeal No. 7906 Of 2002 Arises From The Judgment Dated 23.11.2000 Passed By The Madras High Court In R.C. No. 01 Of 1999. Civil Appeal No. 14689 Of 2015 Was Filed By The Revenue Against The Judgment Dated 26.11.2014 In Central Excise Appeal No. 21 Of 2009. Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 18426 Of 2015, 18423 Of 2015, 18425 Of 2015, 23722 Of 2015, 12282 Of 2016, 16142 Of 2016 & 16141 Of 2016 Are Filed Against The Judgment Of The Andhra Pradesh High Court In Central Excise Appeal Nos. 21 Of 2005, 9 Of 2005, 51 Of 2004, 10 Of 2005, 44 Of 2004, 38 Of 2004 & 18 Of 2005 Respectively. 3. Civil Appeal No. 8488 Of 2009 Is Filed Against The Judgment Dated 20.08.2008 Passed By The Bombay High 2

Section 12-B of the Act does not refer to ultimate consumer and has reference only to the person who buys the goods from the person who has paid duty i.e. the manufacturer. The High Court concluded that the Tribunal committed an error in holding that the Assessee was not entitled for refund despite the Assessee proving that the duty

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KERALA, ERNAKULAM vs. TRAVANCORE SUGAR & CHEMICALS LTD

12 PETITIONER: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KERALA, ERNAKULAM Vs. RESPONDENT: TRAVANCORE SUGAR & CHEMICALS LTD. DATE OF JUDGMENT27/10/1972 BENCH: REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN BENCH: REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN DUA, I.D. CITATION: 1973 AIR 982 1973 SCR (2) 738 1973 SCC (3) 274 CITATOR INFO : D 1976 SC 640 (11) F 1985 SC1656 (9) ACT: Indian Income-Tax Act 1922, Section 10

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY CIRCLE II vs. THE NATIONAL SYNDICATE, BOMBAY

disallowed this deduction, holding that the loss was of a capital nature, and that inasmuch as the business of the respondent was not carried on after August 1945 s. 10(2)(vii) was not applicable. This order of assessment was confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who also held that the loss represented capital loss, as the machines

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA MILLS

The appeal is dismissed

10 of 21 In CIT vs. Shri Someshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. [(1989) 177 ITR 443 (Bom.)] two issues were raised. One issue was whether the assessee had a choice in the matter of claiming a deduction on account of depreciation and the second issue was whether, having claimed in the original return, the Income-tax Officer was entitled

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

Appeals are dismissed

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

disallowed it under the income under   the   head   “interest   on   securities”.     The   Appellate Tribunal confirmed the view. This Court, in paragraphs nos. 3 to 7, held thus:  “3. Learned counsel for the Revenue argued that the   income   from   business   and   securities   fell under different heads, namely, Section 10 and Section 8 of the Act respectively, that they were mutually   exclusive

M/S. W. T. SUREN & CO. LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. BOMBAY

10(2) (xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act in the computation of taxable profits (omitting parts of the clause not material) "any expenditure laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of such business, profession or vocation", i.e., business, profession or vocation carried on by the assessee, is a permissible allowance. But to be a permissible allowance

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

12 34 (2004) 10 SCC 201 Civil Appeal No.2948 of 2023 etc. Page 29 of 91 f. The learned ASG also dealt with the services on tax and work contracts in the pre-GST regime. Relying upon the definition of “works contract” in Article 366 (29A)(b) of the Constitution, he submitted that what is taxed cannot be a taxation

EMPIRE JUTE CO. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

12) ACT: Allowing deduction under section 10(2) (xv) of the Income Tax Act-Revenue expenditure and Capital expenditure- Member of the Jute Mill Association entering into a working time agreement restricting the number of working hours per week for which the mills shall be entitled to work their looms, and also providing for transfer of such working hours between

ASSAM BENGAL CEMENT CO. LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,WEST BENGAL

disallowed as being expenditure of a capital nature and so not allowable under section 10(2) (xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act ". The High Court answered the question in the affirmative and hence this appeal. Clauses 4 and 5 of the deed of lease may be here set out :- 4. The lessee shall pay to the lessor

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

10. On the above question of law, Mr. S. Ganesh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of assessee, contended that prior to 1.4.93, Section 40(b) referred to disallowances per se but after the Finance Act 1992 the said Section 40(b)(iv) allows deduction, subject to the above limit of 18/12% per annum. According to learned counsel, Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX BOMBAY vs. MAHARASHTRA SUGAR MILLS LTD. BOMBAY

In the result this appeal fails and the same is dismissed

section 10 ,only one business and the net profits of the business have to be ascertained by pooling together the profits ,earned in all the, branches and deducting therefrom all the expenses. The fact that some of the branches are in foreign territories will make no difference in the position if the assessee is as in the present case resident

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/s. McMILLAN & CO

Section 31 (3) does not in terms say that the power to vary the assessment including the power to enhance it is subject to ally limitation. We have so far dealt with the questions at issue untrammelled by any authorities. We now turn to such authorities as have been placed before us. We take up first the decision

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

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

Section 271(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act is a civil obligation and unless there is something in language of the statute indicating the need to establish element of mensrea, it is generally sufficient to prove that a default in complying with the statute has occurred. In view of the ratio of the aforesaid judgment of Apex Court

SHAH ORIGINALS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 24 MUMBAI

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

10 Madurai4 for the interpretation commended on the expression “derived from”. The expression must be literally understood, and the ambit of deductions is not expanded through interpretation. He invites our attention to the judgment under appeal and the orders of the AO/CIT to contend that the findings of fact disallowing the deduction of gains in the EEFC account from foreign