M/S.VIRTUAL SOFT SYSTEMS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-I

disallowed i.e. Rs. 10,28,462.00, Rs. 57,51,520.00 and Rs. 1,15,000.00. He concluded that by adding these figures the total amount of Rs. 68,94,982.00 was the income in respect of which inaccurate particulars had been furnished. The tax was computed at Rs. 31,71,692.00. It was held that the tax sought

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

The appeal is allowed

disallowed in computing the total income of such person as a result thereof shall, for the purposes of clause (c) of this sub-section be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. Explanation 2\005\005\005\005. Explanation 3\005\005\005\005. Explanation 4.- For the purposes of clause (iii) of this

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

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

c) of the Act came to be confirmed by both the CIT (A) and the ITAT. Accordingly, the assessee filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Act against the Penalty order, before the High Court. The High Court while deciding both the cases together, qua the first question, decided in favour of the Revenue and the rental premises

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

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

10 of 55 (clause a), or the actual expenditure specifically attributable to the Indian business (clause c). Essentially, clause (a) serves as an absolute ceiling on claims. While clause (c) assesses the actual expenditure incurred that is attributable to the Indian branches, it cannot exceed the statutory limit. Even if the verifiable expenditure is higher, the deduction is mandatorily restricted

JEYAR CONSULTANT & INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,MADRAS

disallowed the deduction claim of the assessee under Section 80HHC of the Act on the ground that the 'profits of the business computed under Section 80HHC indicated a negative figure'. This view was accepted by all the Courts and affirmed by this Court in the aforesaid judgment. Before this Court, submission of the appellant/assessee was that a reading of Section

SHITAL FIBERS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

disallowed. 7. The appeal preferred by the appellant against the said Order was dismissed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). In appeal preferred by the appellant before the ITAT, the appellant was unsuccessful. Thereafter, an appeal was 3 304 ITR 319 Civil Appeal No.14318 of 2015 etc. Page 3 of 20 preferred before the Punjab and Haryana High Court which

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

section 10(2) (xv) of the Act. [756F-H, 757A] Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City II v. Bombay Samachar Ltd., Bombay, 74 ITR 723; Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City IV v. Kishinchand, 109 I.T.R. 569; distinguished. (d) Both the Tribunal as well as the High Court were right in taking the view that the certificate dated October

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY

C) No. 14729 of 2012 titled as Addl. CIT v. Tulip Star Hotels Ltd. The counsel therefore, argues that there is no finality on the issue of disallowance, when mixed funds are used. On this aspect, since the issue is pending before a larger Bench, comments from this Bench may not be appropriate. However, at the same time

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,MYSORETRAVANCORE-COCHIN AND vs. THE INDO MERCANTILE BANK, LIMITED(and connected appeal)

In the result the appeals fail and are dismissed with costs

23. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAPUR, J.-These two appeals by special leave raise a common question of law, and that is, whether business losses incurred in the erstwhile State of Cochin could, under the Income-tax Act of Travancore, be set off against the business profits made in the erstwhile State of Travancore. In Appeal

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

c) is used in entirely different senses, in the relevant deduction clauses. The 20 differentiation is also evident from the fact that each of these contributions is separately dealt with in different clauses of Section 36 (1). All these establish that Parliament, while introducing Section 36(1)(va) along with Section 2(24)(x), was aware of the distinction between

SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

10. Assailing the order so passed by the High Court in summary dismissal of the appeal as also the views expressed in the assessment and appellate orders, learned counsel for the assessee-appellant has urged before us multiple contentions on the scope and applicability of Section 194C of the Act as also Section 40(a)(ia) thereof and has argued

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

JT.COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,SURAT vs. SAHELI LEASING & INDUSTRIES LTD

Appeals stand allowed as mentioned hereinabove but with

disallowed out of depreciation. Penalty proceedings under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act were initiated. In response to the show cause notice issued by the Revenue, Assessee filed its reply denying the allegations and contending that no penalty can be imposed on it, when returned income was NIL. 15. Penalty was sought to be imposed in respect

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

23, 1959 to its employees about ceasing of their employment on and from April 30, 1959. According to assessee this letter terminated the services of the employees and the assessee was bound to pay gratuity till that point of time. It, therefore could not be said that there existed no liability to pay any gratuity. It was submitted that

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

c) of sub-section (2) of section 273, no penalty shall be imposable on the person or the assessee, as the case may be, for any failure referred to in the said provisions if he proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure.” IV. Issue: 20. Whether TDS provisions which are in the nature of machinery provisions enabling

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 BOMBAY vs. MAHARASHTRA SUGAR MILLS LTD. BOMBAY

In the result this appeal fails and the same is dismissed

C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde, J. This is an appeal by special leave. It arises from the decision of the Bombay High Court in Income-tax Reference No. 83 of 1962 on its file. That Reference was made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench ’B’, Bombay

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

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

23 of 59 assess or reassess the income cannot be assumed merely on the basis of ‘search’ particularly when no incriminating material is unearthed during the course of search. It is submitted that the assessment under section 153A is not the same as regular assessment under section 143(3) as is being contested by the Revenue. It is submitted that