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

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

ii) If the answer to the above question is in affirmative then, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in distinguishing the ratio laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Piara Singh v/s CIT, 124 ITR 41 and thereby not allowing the loss

SMITH KLINE & FRENCH [INDIA] LTD.ETC. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

disallowed if it falls inter-alia within sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of Section 40. The question, therefore, is whether the tax levied under the Companies Profits (Surtax) Act, 1964 falls within the mischief of said sub-clause. We think it does. The preamble to the Surtax Act says that it is "an Act to impose a surtax

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

SHIV RAJ GUPTA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI IV

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

25 staff and other officers in its other offices. The MoU then refers to a direction of the Supreme Court, which was made by an Order dated 11.03.1994, which made it clear that the company’s manufacturing activity at the plant at Meerut was suspended 3 until a secondary effluent treatment plant is installed and made operative by the company

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

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

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

ii) payment of the secretaries and treasurers’ remuneration." By another agreement dated January 28, 1947, the following clause was substituted for the above caluse 7 of the original agreement : "The Government shall be entitled to ten per centum of the net profits of the company in every year. For the purpose of this clause net profits means the amount

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

25 of 91 and immovables. This distinction is not available in England. 16. His submissions about the interpretation of Section 17(5)(d) can be summarised as follows: a. The expression “plant or machinery” must be read as “plant and machinery”. It is not uncommon to read “and” as “or” or “or” as “and”. He relied upon a decision

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

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

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

25 CITATOR INFO : E 1981 SC 395 (3) RF 1987 SC 798 (11) R 1989 SC1913 (14) F 1991 SC 227 (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

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

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

disallowed under Section 43-B which, as stated above, was inserted with effect from 1-4-1984 *** 22. It is important to note once again that, by the Finance Act, 2003, not only is the second proviso deleted but even the first proviso is sought to be amended by bringing about a uniformity in tax, duty, cess

.M. SALGAOCAR & BORS. VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly Civil Appeal No. 657 of 1994 is allowed and Civil Appeal Nos

25, 1999 dismissed the appeal just stating "The appeal is dismissed". (2) Sections 17(2) and 40A of the Act were amended by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984. Sub-clause (vi)1 of clause (2) of section 17 of the Act, as inserted by the said Amendment Act of 1984, provides that where the employer has advanced any loan

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

25. The judgment of the Court was delivered by HIDAYATULLAH, J.-The assessee, A.V. Thomas & Co., Ltd., Alleppey, claimed a deduction of Rs. 4,05,072-8-6 in the assessment year 1952-53 as a bad debt which was written-off in its books of account on December 31, 1951. This claim was disallowed. After sundry procedure, the following

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE

The appeal is allowed

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

25 Provided further that the Settlement Commission shall not grant immunity from prosecution for any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or under any Central Act other than this Act and the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957) to a person who makes an application under section 245C on or after the 1st day of June

M/S JINDAL EQUIPMENT LEASING CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

ii) the extinguishment of any rights therein; or (iii) the compulsory acquisition thereof under any law …” Section 28 — Profits and gains of business or profession “The following income shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession",— (i) the profits and gains of any business or profession which was carried

RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD JAIPUR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (ASSESSMENT)

In the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI

10 upon which sub-section (1-A) had been introduced into the Act. The substituted sub-section (1-A) read thus: “143. (1-A)(a) Where as a result of the adjustments made under the first proviso to clause (a) of sub-section (1),— (i) the income declared by any person in the return is increased; or (ii) the loss