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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 12AA(1) of the IT Act, on 18.05.1979 and is engaged in the activity of promotion of the export of all kind of ready-made garments, knitwear, and garments made of leather, jute and hemp. It does not per se engage in any activity for profit, and its mandate is to ensure that Indian apparel manufacturers, are given forums

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

disallowance of deduction claimed under Sections 10-AA, 80-IA, 80-IAB, 80-IB, 80-IC, 80-ID or Section 80-IE, if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of Section 139; or (vi) addition of income appearing in Form 26- AS or Form 16-A or Form 16 which has not been

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

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

disallowed otherwise through a statute. This Court in SC Kothari (supra) had merely laid down the general proposition of law by taking note of the position prevailing in other countries, but in any case, it has got no application over a case of either a penalty or confiscation. 21.2 The law as laid down in Haji Aziz (supra) despite being

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

DHARAMVIR DHIR vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,BIHAR & ORISSA

section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act?" The facts of the appeals are these: The appellant was an employee of M/s. Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. and for each of the accounting years relating to the assessment years 1947- 48 and 1948-49 his salary was Rs. 10,572. He also had an income of Rs. 500 from

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

10). 25. In the case of A.H. Wadia v. CIT reported in (1949) 17 ITR 63 the Federal Court held that so long as the statute (Income-tax Act, 1922) selected some fact or circumstance which provided some connection or nexus between the person who is subject to the tax and the country imposing the 32 tax, its validity would

SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

10 Sub-section (2) was inserted by the Finance Act, 2002. 11 Sub-section (3) was inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2004, w.e.f. 01.04.2005. 26 to in that sub-section does not deduct the whole or any part of the tax or after deducting fails to pay the tax as required by or under this

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA MILLS

The appeal is dismissed

iii) actual cost of assets acquired during the previous year; (iv) capital expenditure on additions or alterations; (v) period of user only where return relates to assessment year 1969-70 or any earlier year; (vi) amount of moneys payable and scrap value in respect of assets sold, discarded, demolished or destroyed; (vii) amount on which depreciation is allowable total

CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THRISSUR

disallowed. This amount was added back to the taxable income of the assessee, for which a demand notice and challan was accordingly issued. This order of the assessing officer dated 24th January, 2005, was challenged in appeal by the assessee on various grounds. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’], vide its order

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

10 Page 11 JUDGMENT International Pvt. Ltd. reported in (1984) 1 SCC 467 and (2005) 3 SCC 787. He contends that in the said judgments it was held that trade discounts should not be disallowed only because they are not payable at the time of each invoice or deducted from the invoice price. He also placed reliance on IFB Industries

A. vs. . THOMAS & CO., LTD., ALLEPPEY VS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,(BANGALORE) KERALA

In the result the appeal must fail and it is dismissed

Section 10(2) (xv) of the Act, and (iii) Whether co the facts and in the circums- tances of the case, the assessee is permitted to claim the deduction of the said sum of Rs. 4,05,072-8-5 as a proper debit and charge it to the Profit and Loss account of the assessee company." These questions show

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

10. “Income” has been defined under Section 2(24) of the Act to include profits and gains. Under Section 2(24)(x), any sum received by the assessee from his employees as contributions to any provident fund/superannuation fund or any fund set up under the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948, or any other fund for the welfare of such employees

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 6 vs. KHYATI REALTORS PVT. LTD

The appeal is allowed, in the above terms, without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

disallowed by Explanation to Section 36(1)(vii), if claimed, has got to be added back to the total income of the assessee because the said Act seeks to tax the “real income” which is income computed according to ordinary commercial principles but subject to the provisions of the IT Act. Under Section 36(1)(vii) read with the Explanation

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

iii)Held further, that clause (xv) of Sub-section 2 of Sec. 10 is confined tothe payments wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of businessin which expenditure of a revenue nature would also be included along with the expenditure of various other categories. The contention that the said clause covers expenditure of both the capital and revenue nature

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

In the result this appeal fails and the same is dismissed

10(2) (iii) of the Act and there was no warrant for disallowing a proportionate part of the interest referable to money borrowed for the purchase of securities whose interest was tax-free. In the course of the Judgment Subba Rao, J. (as he then was) observed: "In our opinion,, in construing the Act, we must adhere closely

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

disallowance of the deduction under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, end up paying tax of a huge amount, way beyond the commission, resulting in extreme financial hardship. Thus, if section 195 of the Income Tax Act could be construed in a manner so as to avoid such a result, this must be done. Further, he relied

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

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

10) TMI 1022 (Gujarat) 11. Smt. Jami Nirmala Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (2021) 437 ITR 573 (Orissa) 12. Smt. Smrutisudha Nayak Vs. Union of India (2021) 439 ITR 193 (Orissa) 13. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata Vs. Veerprabhu Marketing Limited (2016) 388 ITR 574 (Calcutta) 14. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Kolkata Vs. M/s. Salasar Stock Broking

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY vs. CIBA OF INDIA LTD

III payable by the assessee was reduced from 10% to 6% of the net selling price of the pharmaceuticals. Pursuant to this Agreement, the assessee paid year after year diverse sums of money to the Swiss Company. In proceedings for assessment to tax for the assessment years 1949-50 to 1953-54 payments made to the Swiss Company were claimed