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

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

30 to 39, it will be 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

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

In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed

section 10(5)(b) of the said Act". For the assessment year 195 1-52 the respondent was assessed for the first time under the Indian Income-tax Act, and basing its claim on paragraph 2 of the aforesaid Order it asked for depreciation allowance in respect of its assets http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10

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

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

30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gain of business or profession". It may be noticed that provisions where no deduction

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

section 2 of Sec. 10 is confined tothe payments wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of businessin which expenditure of a revenue nature would also be included along with the expenditure of various other categories. The contention that the said clause covers expenditure of both the capital and revenue nature and also payments wholly and exclusively laid

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY CIRCLE II vs. THE NATIONAL SYNDICATE, BOMBAY

disallowed this deduction, holding that the loss was of a capital nature, and that inasmuch as the business of the respondent was not carried on after August 1945 s. 10(2)(vii) was not applicable. This order of assessment was confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who also held that the loss represented capital loss, as the machines

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

M/S. BALLIMAL NAVAL KISHORE & ANR. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly fails and is dismissed

disallowed the same. According to him it was capital expenditure. On Appeal, Appellate Assistant Commissioner affirmed the view taken by the Income tax Officer. On further appeal, however, the Tribunal upheld the assessee’s case whereupon the following question was referred to the Bombay High Court under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, at the instance

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX BOMBAY vs. MAHARASHTRA SUGAR MILLS LTD. BOMBAY

In the result this appeal fails and the same is dismissed

30-9-1956. , The assessee is a Limited Company. it carries on business of manufacture of sugar from.sugar cane. It owns extensive lands in which sugar cane is grown. The sugar cane grown in these lands is used by the assessee for manufacture of sugar in its factory. The finding of the Tribunal is that 16-M 1245 Sup. Cl/71

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