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

11. Consequently, the relevant parts of sub-sections (1) to (3) of Section 143 of the Act, as they stand today are as under: “143. Assessment.—(1) Where a return has been made under Section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of Section 142, such return shall be processed in the following manner, namely

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

11 salaries paid by any other person, which is not on account of or on behalf of such employer, notwithstanding that such salaries may have nexus with the service of the employee with that employer and may be assessable to tax in India in the hands of the recipient employee. According to the learned counsel, on facts, the payment

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

d), clause (e) and clause (f) which is consequential in nature. It is also proposed to omit the second proviso to the said section. These amendments will take effect from 1st April, 2004 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2004-2005 and subsequent years." 42. The rationale for introduction of Section 43B was explained by this

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

D G M E N T ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. This appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the Division Bench judgment dated 13.11.2007 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur by which D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.837 of 1993 filed by the Revenue has been allowed upholding the demand of additional tax under

MODI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MODINAGAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI

The appeals are allowed in the above

11 of 39 the Calcutta High Court. A Full Bench of the Bombay High Court considered the question once again in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Carona Sahu Company Ltd. (146 I.T.R.452). Bharucha, J., speaking for the Full Bench, reviewed all the decisions of the High Courts rendered till then and affirmed the following propositions: (a) interest is compensatory

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

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 Act seeks to tax the “real income” which is income computed according to ordinary commercial principles but subject to the provisions of the IT Act. Under Section 36(1)(vii) read with the Explanation

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

D work which enables educational institutions with Information and Communication Technology infrastructure for making education reach the public at large solely for charitable purpose and further reliance was placed upon ICAI Accounting Research Foundation v. DGIT(E)70, Bureau of Indian Standards v. DGIT(E)71 and GS1 India v. DGIT(E)72. 66. Mr. Ajay Vohra, learned senior counsel

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

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

D. No. 22308/2022 has been filed by the revenue against the judgment and order dated 11.01.2022 passed by the Madras High Court dismissing Tax Case (Appeal) No. 600 of 2010 (CIT, Chennai Vs. M/s. Pentasoft Technologies Limited) of the revenue for the assessment year 2001-02. 5. The perennial question of whether an expenditure incurred by an assessee is capital

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

The appeal is allowed without

11. It is to be noted that substantial changes have been made to section 143(1) with effect from June 1, 1999. Up to March 31, 1989, after a return of income was filed the Assessing Officer could make an assessment under section 143(1) without requiring the presence of the assessee or the production by him of any evidence

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

11. Section 36 of the Act occurs under the heading ‘other deductions’, and its relevant extract, for the purpose of this case, is as follows: “36. (1) The deductions provided for in the following clauses shall be allowed in respect of the matters dealt with therein, in computing the income referred to in section

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA MILLS

The appeal is dismissed

d) extra-shift allowance double shift and triple shift; (xii) total depreciation; (xiii) investment allowance claimed (also indicate rate); (xiv) remarks (indicate the amount of initial depreciation, investment allowance or development rebate allowed in respect of the assets in an earlier year). (2) Where the depreciation in respect of any asset is not admissible as a deduction under clause

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

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

d. Section 158BB(3) imposed the burden on the assessee to prove that any undisclosed income had already been disclosed in any return of income filed by the assessee, before the commencement of search or of the requisition, as the case may be. e. In short, assessment on undisclosed income for block period is an independent assessment from the rest

ASSOCIATED STONE INDUSTRIES (KOTAH) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJASTHAN

The appeal is disposed of as above and the matter is

D G M E N T Paripoornan, J. The appellant is a public limited company. It was incorporated in the then Indian State of Kotah on 17.1.1945 for carrying on the business of quarrying stones. it is an assessee to Income-tax. This appeal is filed in pursuance to the certificate of fitness granted by the High Court of Rajasthan

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

ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

D G M E N T R.F. Nariman, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The appeals in these cases are by both the assessees as well as the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance [“Revenue”]. Whereas the 6 assessees have succeeded in the question that was posed before the High Court of Delhi,1 the Revenue has succeeded insofar

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

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

D G M E N T M. R. Shah, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 22.11.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur passed in DBITA No.96/2003 Digitally signed by RASHMI DHYANI Date: 2023.04.26 16:23:21 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified Civil Appeal