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

A.M. MOOSA vs. COMMNR OF INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM

disallowed the claim on the ground that the ’profits of the business’ computed under Section 80-HHC indicated a negative figure. An appeal was preferred before Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Cochin Bench, hereinafter, referred to as ’the CIT(A)’. The said appellate authority also was of the same view and dismissed the appeal. The assessee appellant preferred an appeal

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

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 on the immovable

SHAH ORIGINALS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 24 MUMBAI

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

10 crores and as the assessee did not fulfil the conditions set out in the third proviso to Section 80-HHC(3), the assessee was not entitled to a deduction under Section 80-HHC on the amount received on transfer of DEPB and with a view to get over this difficulty the assessee was contending that the profits on transfer

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

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

disallowable under Explanation 1 to Section 37(1). It is submitted that thus either way, neither can the Respondent- Assessee claim business loss due to him not being in the smuggling business nor can he claim business expenditure as the same is prohibited under Explanation 1 to Section 37(1). 3.6 Making above submissions and relying upon the above submissions

BASIR AHMED SISODIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal is allowed

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

Disallowed deduction U/s.24(1)  as per discussion  7200/­ 2. Additions in gross profit  10000/­ 3. Additions on the basis of less  Household expenses withdrawals 18000/­ 4. Unexplained credits as per discussions  226000/­  261200/­ Total taxable Income Tax          348700/­ Assessment was made. Necessary forms were issued. Notice be issued separately for imposition of penalty under Section 272(1)(c).” 3. Aggrieved

UDAIPUR SAHKARI UPBOKTA THOK BHANDER LD. vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX

disallowed the claim on the ground that the appellant-society is a wholesaler of foodgrains and it is not a mere stockist as claimed and consequently it was not entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(e) of the 1961 Act. This order was applied for assessment years in question. Aggrieved by the assessment order(s), appellant filed appeals before

M/S. MANGALAM PUBLICATIONS, KOTTAYAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM

Bench: This Court & On Leave Being Granted, Civil Appeals Have Been Registered. 3.

disallowances. He submits that for the assessment year 1993–1994, the appellant had maintained complete set of books of account, audited profit and loss account and balance sheet which were duly filed before the assessing officer. Following assessment proceedings, assessing officer passed the assessment order for the assessment year 1993 – 1994 on 27.01.1994 under Section 143 (3

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

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

3) (2) Bangalore (2022 (8) TMI 966 (Karnataka) 10. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 Vs. Jay Infrastructure and Properties Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (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

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY

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 for the investments and other expenditures

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

MAHARANA MILLS PVT. LTD. vs. INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD & ORS

In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed

3 and 13 of the Finance Act, 1950, the taxation laws in force in that State were repealed and the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was extended to that area; and, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 12 of the Finance Act, 1950, the Central Government issued a notification dated December 2, 1950, called the Taxation Laws (Part

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. D.P. SANDU BROS CHEMBUR (P) LTD

disallowed by the Assessing Officer who held that the amount of Rs.35 lakhs was taxable as "income from other sources" under Section 10(3

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COIMBATORE vs. M/S. LAKSHMI MACHINE WORKS

10,14,680 Less: Deduction Under section 80HHC [see Note] http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 18 Under section 80-I [i.e., 25% of Rs.9,94,680] Net income (rounded off) 5,48,355 2,48,670 2,17,660 Note: Computation of deduction under section 80HHC 1. Profit of the business - It will be calculated

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS PVT.LTD

The appeal is allowed without

disallowing deductions, allowance or relief. 13. One thing further to be noticed is that intimation under section 143(1)(a) is given without prejudice to the provisions of section 143(2). Though technically the intimation issued was deemed to be a demand notice issued under section 156, that did not per se preclude the right of the Assessing Officer

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