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

6 Page 7 JUDGMENT 8. The Assessee filed an application for reference of questions arising out of the final order dated 07.12.1996. The Tribunal referred the following questions for consideration of the High Court by its order dated 28.08.1998, taking note of the fact of the existence of divergent views on the point. “1. Whether by passing on the duty

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY

6 of 22 to challenge the High Court’s decision which was against the assessee. 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

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

THE BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA

11,630.00 was the interest which accrued upto   the   date   of   purchase   of   securities   by   the assessee­Bank from the open market. These too amounts were brought to tax by the A.O. under section   18   of   the   Income­tax   Act.   The   assessee Bank claimed that these amounts were deductible under sections 19 and 20. This was on the footing that   the   department

SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

6 assessee firm was a mediator between the company and the truck owners/ operators…...” (emphasis in bold supplied) 5.5. In view of the above, the AO proceeded to disallow the deduction of payments made to the truck operators/owners exceeding Rs. 20,000/- without TDS, which in total amounted to Rs. 57,11,625/-; and added the same back

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) DELHI vs. HARPRASAD & CO. (P) LTD

In the result, the appeal is accepted with costs

11 of 1922) Sections 12B, 22(2A), 24(2A) & (2B)--Capital loss incurred in the year when capital gains were not exigible to tax--If could be set against capital gains in subsequent years. HEADNOTE: By the Income-tax and Excess Profit Tax (Amendment) Act, 1947 s. 12B was inserted in the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, making capital gains

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 MUMBAI vs. M/S. ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

disallow expenditure incurred to earn exempt income by applying the provisions of newly inserted section 14A of the Act.” 17. By   Finance   Act,   2002,   a   statutory   provision   was   also inserted by way of proviso to Section 14A.  What was clarified by the Circular have been statutorily engrafted in the proviso to the following effect:­            “Provided that nothing contained in this

M/S MUNJAL SALES CORPORATION vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,LUDHIANA

disallowance comes in only to the extent that payment of interest to the partner exceeds 12/18% per annum. In this case, according to learned counsel, all the conditions of Sections 40(b)(iv) have been satisfied and, therefore, the assessee was entitled to the benefit of deduction thereunder. In this connection, it was further argued that deduction under Section

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

In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed

disallowed the respondent’s claim on the ground that it was against the principle inherent in granting depreciation allowance which must decrease from year to year. The matter was taken up to this Court and while it was pending there, on May 8, 1956, the Central Government issued a notification in exercise of its powers conferred on it by section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S JINDAL STEEL THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

Appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

11 State Electricity Board for supply of electricity to the industrial consumers including the assessee. 11.1. Assessee had claimed deduction under Section 80 IA in respect of its two undertakings engaged in generation of power at Raigarh (Chhattisgarh). Power produced in the captive power plants was primarily for use by the respondent assessee in its steel plants. Availability of electricity

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. SALGAOCAR & BORS. VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly Civil Appeal No. 657 of 1994 is allowed and Civil Appeal Nos

6% and if they let out the houses, the interest will be charged at 9% per annum. The Department says that the difference between the concessional rate of interest and the prevailing market rate of interest should be disallowed under section 40A(5) of the Act. On this question too, the Tribunal, following its earlier decision, held in favour

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

11 a composite amount - referred to as the amount payable in respect of an employee under the scheme. It was submitted that similarly Section 6 of the Act and paragraphs 28, 30 & 38 of the EPF Scheme establish that what was payable as contribution by the employer was not only the contribution in respect of its obligation to deposit amounts

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

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

SHAH ORIGINALS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 24 MUMBAI

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

disallowance of deduction under Section 80 HHC is justified in law, and no ground is made for interference. III. ANALYSIS 6. In the above narrative, the question that falls for our consideration is “whether the gain on foreign exchange fluctuation in the EEFC account of the assessee partakes the character of profits of the business of the assessee from exports

M/S. DUNCANS INDUSTRIES LTD., CALCUTTA vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE,NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of in

disallowed and why the charges on account of freight, interest on freight, rebate, octroi and interest on receivables should not be included in the assessable value and also why the cost of C.F.C. packing charged and realized by them from the buyers should not be included in the assessable value under Section 4(1) (a) and Section

DEVI CINE PROJECTOR MANUFACTURINGCO., ETC. ETC. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

11;55 to 1188 (NT) of 1990. From the Judgments and Orders dated 7.11.1985, 12.8.85, 6.2.85 and 24.7.86 of Madras High Court in T.C.P. Nos, 739/85, 3 13/85, 260/84 and 42/86. T.A. Ramachandran and Mrs. Janaki Ramachandran for the Appellants. S.C. Manchanda, B.B. Ahuja and Ms. A. Subhashini for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATACHALIAH