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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY

23. It would now be appropriate to advert in some detail to Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT10. This case interestingly is relied by both sides’ counsel. Writing for the Bench, Justice Dr. A.K. Sikri noted the objective for incorporation of Section 14A in the Act in the following words: - “3…………. The purpose behind Section

SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

10. On top of that, section 4 relied upon by Mr. Agarwal merely provides for an enactment as regards rate of tax to be charged in any particular assessment year which has no application to the case before us. Section 11 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 by which sub-clause (ia) was added to 45 section

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

23. It was argued that it was with introduction of Section 43B with effect from 01.04.1984, that the law insisted upon actual payment of amounts claimed as deductions, enumerated under the provision. Section 43B(b) spoke of sum payable by the employer by way of contribution to a welfare or provident fund. It could be understood that the provision took

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

23 of 91 MODVAT credit, which was made available to inputs and raw materials and later extended to capital goods. 15. His submissions about the challenge to constitutional validity can be summarised as follows: a. Classification of the assessees on the same footing as assessees engaged in the business of constructing immovable properties and then selling the immovable properties

MODI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MODINAGAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI

The appeals are allowed in the above

10,000/- with effect from April 1, 1975 upto March 31, 1976, according to the Bombay/Allahabad view, whereas according to the Calcutta/Gujarat view, the assessee would be entitled to interest under Section 214 on the whole sum of Rs. 15,000/- with effect from April 1, 1975 upto March 31, 1977. This is the natural and logical consequence flowing from

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

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

10(2) does not deal exhaustively with the deductions, which must be made to arrive at the true profits and gains. 8. To find out whether an expenditure is on the capital account or on revenue, one must consider the expenditure in relation to the business. Since all payments reduce capital in the ultimate analysis, one is apt to consider

SHAH ORIGINALS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 24 MUMBAI

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

disallowing the deduction under Section 80 HHC, in the facts and circumstances of the case, are valid and tenable. 9. We have perused the citations Mr. V. B. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the assessee, has placed a strong reliance on. The cases relied on by the assessee are clearly distinguishable on the point of deciding the appeal. The ratio

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

10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922. 23. In Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. (supra), the assessee was the manufacture of the antibiotic penicillin. In its initial years, it could produce only about 5000 units of penicillin per milli-liter of the culture-medium. With a view to increase the yield of penicillin, assessee negotiated with

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KOLKATA XII vs. M/S CALCUTTA EXPORT COMPANY

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL

23,88,832/- by the Respondent. (b) Being aggrieved by the order dated 12.10.2009, the Respondent preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals). Learned CIT (Appeals), vide order dated 01.08.2011, allowed the appeal while holding that the commission amount is eligible for deduction under the said Assessment Year. 10 (c) Being aggrieved, the Revenue preferred an appeal

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

10-12-2009 imposing a prohibition on the medical practitioner and their professional associations from taking any Gift, Travel facility, Hospitality, Cash or monetary grant from the pharmaceutical and allied health sector Industries. 3. Section 37(1) of Income Tax Act provides for deduction of any revenue expenditure (other than those failing under sections 30 to 36) from the business

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

10 C.A.@S.L.P.(C)No.12859 of 2020 etc. 11. Sri Venkataraman, learned ASG appearing for the revenue, by drawing our attention to the provisions under Articles 285 and 289 of the   Constitution   of   India,   has   explained   the   intent   behind   the amendment to Section 40 of the Income­tax Act, 1961, by Act 17 of 2013.  It is submitted that in terms

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

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

disallowed. Civil Appeal Nos 8291 of 2015 & 4451 of 2016 Page 3 of 55 5. The respondent, in its reply to the notice referred to above, clarified that the expenses in question could not have been classified as head office expenditure for the reason that Section 44C of the Act, 1961 presupposes that at least a part of the expenditure

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S WOODWARD GOVERNOR INDIA P. LTD

disallowed the deduction/debit. This fact is important. It indicates the double standards adopted by the Department. 11. The dispute in this batch of civil appeals centers around the year(s) in which deduction would be admissible for the increased liability under Section 37(1). 12. We quote hereinbelow Section 28(i), Section 29 Section 37(1) and Section

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE

The appeal is allowed

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

23 approaching the Settlement Commission. Chapter XIX-A of the Act incorporates Sections 245A to 245M. Section 245C which is relevant for the purpose of this case provides the manner in which an application for settlement of cases is to be made before the Settlement Commission. An assessee seeking to settle a case with the Department is required under Section

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

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

10 intention of the Legislature since the inception of   the   Income­tax   Act,   1961,   that   no   deduction shall   be   made   in   respect   of   any   expenditure incurred   by   the   assessee   in   relation   to   income which does not form part of the total income under the   Income­tax   Act.   The   proposed   amendment   will take effect retrospectively from 1st April, 1962 and   will   accordingly,   apply

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

10,00,00,000/- 74,91,27,579/- 2009-10 Corporate Tax Assessment u/s 143(3) 2,42,86,76,260/- 97,36,82,990/- 1,45,49,93,270/- 2010-11 Corporate Tax Assessment u/s 143(3) 3,36,22,76,980/- 60,00,00,000/- 2,76,22,76,980/- 2010-11 Corporate Tax Assessment

M/S. SOUTHERN TECHNOLOGIES LTD. vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, COIMBATORE

10 crores, the Board of Directors may transfer Rs. 8 crores to P&L Appropriation A/c for taxation, dividend and reserve. The balance will be transferred to credit balance of P&L A/c. The entries will be as follows:- Stage 1: P&L A/c Dr. 10.00 To P&L Appropriation A/c 8.00 To P& L A/c 2.00 Stage