ASST. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS vs. THANTHI TRUST

disallow the claim of the Trust for exemption under Section 4(3)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 for the Assessment Years 1955-56 to 1961-62. The Trust challenged the correctness of the tentative decision by filing a writ petition in the High Court of Judicature at Madras. On 25th June, 1961 the trustees of the Trust took

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

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

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

SHAH ORIGINALS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 24 MUMBAI

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

3) applies to Section 80 HHC. 4. Mr. Arijit Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing for the Revenue, argued that whether the deduction claimed under Section 80HHC is a profit derived from the export business depends on each case's facts and circumstances. None of the precedents relied upon by the assessee deals with a foreign exchange fluctuation. The case

SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

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 Act, he or it shall be liable to pay simple interest at twelve per cent

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

COMMNR.,CENTRAL EXCISE, MADRAS vs. M/S. ADISON & CO. LTD

Bench: Us Because Of An Order Dated 16.07.2008, By Which There Was A Reference To A Larger Bench In View Of The Importance Of The Questions Involved. 2. Civil Appeal No. 7906 Of 2002 Arises From The Judgment Dated 23.11.2000 Passed By The Madras High Court In R.C. No. 01 Of 1999. Civil Appeal No. 14689 Of 2015 Was Filed By The Revenue Against The Judgment Dated 26.11.2014 In Central Excise Appeal No. 21 Of 2009. Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 18426 Of 2015, 18423 Of 2015, 18425 Of 2015, 23722 Of 2015, 12282 Of 2016, 16142 Of 2016 & 16141 Of 2016 Are Filed Against The Judgment Of The Andhra Pradesh High Court In Central Excise Appeal Nos. 21 Of 2005, 9 Of 2005, 51 Of 2004, 10 Of 2005, 44 Of 2004, 38 Of 2004 & 18 Of 2005 Respectively. 3. Civil Appeal No. 8488 Of 2009 Is Filed Against The Judgment Dated 20.08.2008 Passed By The Bombay High 2

11 JUDGMENT International Pvt. Ltd. reported in (1984) 1 SCC 467 and (2005) 3 SCC 787. He contends that in the said judgments it was held that trade discounts should not be disallowed only because they are not payable at the time of each invoice or deducted from the invoice price. He also placed reliance on IFB Industries

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

11. It is pointed out that Section 17(5)(c) carves out an exception only for works contracts, assuming that this is the only category of service where there is no breakage in the chain of taxable supplies. It is submitted that while Section 17(5)(c) allows ITC on works contracts for contractors, ITC has been blocked for other

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

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

11 seized by the department in the course of a search and seizure operation and not yet returned. CIT(A) further noted that the assessing officer had taken the balance sheet as on 31.03.1989 filed by the assessee before the South Indian Bank as the base for reconciling the accounts of the partners. It was noticed that

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY

11. Since, the scope of Section 14A of the Act will require interpretation, the Section with sub-clauses (2) and (3) along with the proviso is extracted hereinbelow: - “14A. Expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in total income - (1) For the purposes of computing the total income under this Chapter, no deduction shall be allowed in respect

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

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

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

11 of 18 __________ 42,90,000 Total turnover (of goods exported) 30,50,000 Freight and insurance attributable to transport of goods beyond customs station 2,40,000 Export incentive under Section 28(iiia), (iiib),(iiic) 6,50,000 Brokerage, commission, rent, interest 2,70,000 Profit of foreign branch 80,000 42,90,000 Other information

MANSAROVAR COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI

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

disallowed). Separate penalty proceedings were initiated under sections 271(1)(a). 271(1)(c), 273/274 and 271-B of the Act. 2.12 The assessees then preferred appeals before the CIT(A). Subsequently on 08th December, 2000, the writ petitions filed by the assessees came to be dismissed by the High Court as the respective assessees moved the Appellate Authority prescribed

M/S. VIKRAM CEMENT vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE

disallow the credit on aforestated items on the ground that they were used for extraction of limestone in the mines and not within the factory in which cement (final product) was manufactured by the assessee. The assessee replied to each of the above three show-cause notices by which it submitted that the substantive definition of "input" as per clause

M/S. PUROLATOR INDIA LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-III

Appeal is disposed of accordingly

11 Page 12 JUDGMENT wholesale trade for delivery at the time and place of removal, where the buyer is not a related person and the price is the sole consideration for the sale: Provided that - (i) where, in accordance with the normal practice of the wholesale trade in such goods, such goods are sold by the assessee at different prices

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

3, FL­4, 4A, FL­11, FL­12 licence holders.  The FL­1 licence was for sale of foreign liquor in sealed bottles, without privilege of consumption within the premises.  The gallonage fee is payable as per Section 18A of the Kerala Abkari Act and Rule 15A of the Foreign Liquor Rules.  The appellant was the only licence holder for the relevant years