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

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

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, 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

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY

10 (2018) 15 SCC 523 Page 15 of 22 expenditure would then be considered as incurred in respect of other income which is to be treated as part of the total income.” Adverting to the law as it stood earlier, this Court rejected the theory of dominant purpose suggested by the Punjab & Haryana High Court and accepted the principle

COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS vs. BRAKES INDIA LTD., MADRAS

Accordingly fails and is dismissed

disallowed the balance of Rs. 15,376. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, allowed the assessee’s appeal holding that inasmuch as the salary of the foreign technical director was exempt from tax under section 10(6)(vii), the provision contained in section 40(c)(iii) was not applicable. The appeal filed by the 995 Revenue was allowed by the Tribunal

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

disallowances. In terms of this scheme, Section 40 (which too starts with a non- obstante clause overriding Sections 30-38), deals with what cannot be deducted in computing income under the head “Profits and Gains of Business and Profession”. Likewise, Section 40A(2) opens with a non-obstante clause and spells out what expenses and payments are not deductible

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

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

30 to 43D of the IT Act, unless such Losses/ Expenses are expressly or by necessary implication disallowed by the Act. Therefore, even applying the theory of Real Income, a debit which is expressly 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

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. This appeal is at the instance of the revenue assailing the judgment and order dated 11.06.2019 passed by the Bombay High Court in Income Tax Appeal No. 556 of 2017 (Principal 16 Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Piramal Glass Limited) preferred by the revenue. The assessment year under consideration is 2001-2002. 10.1. Assessee, which is the respondent

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

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

30 of 55 effect on Sections 28 to 43A for the specific purpose of computing head office expenditure of a non-resident assessee. 44. We have no doubt that for an expense to be governed by the tenets of Section 44C of the Act, 1961, two conditions must be fulfilled: (i) the assessee should be a non-resident

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

10(2)(xi) of the 1922 Act, is that the amount of debt should have been taken into account in computing the income of the assessee in the previous year. Under the IT Act, the emphasis is not on the assessee being the creditor but taking into account of the debt in computing the business income. [See Section

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

THE COMMNR.OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. M/S.SARAVANA SPINNING MILLS PVT. LTD

Appeals stand allowed with no order as to costs

disallowed the claim of the assessee. The Appellate Authority agreed with the I.T.O.. Before the Tribunal, the assessee contended that the amount expended for introducing Casablanca Conversion System was current expenditure under Section 10(2)(v) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 (Section 31(i) of the 1961 Act). The Tribunal inspected the spinning factory of the assessee

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

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

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

30   to   38,   the   following amounts shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession”,­ 5 C.A.@S.L.P.(C)No.12859 of 2020 etc. (a)   in the case of any assessee­ (i) … … … …   … … … … (iib) any amount ­  (A)  paid by way of royalty, licence fee, service fee, privilege fee, service charge

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

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

10) Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent submitted that the purpose of insertion of provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act was to ensure the compliance of TDS provisions and not to punish those assessees who have deducted and paid the TDS to the government sooner or later. The said purpose