SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

12. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and the observations occurring in the orders impugned, the principal questions arising for determination in this appeal could be stated as follows:- 1. As to whether Section 194C of the Act does not apply to the present case? 2. As to whether disallowance

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

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

disallowed interest paid to the partners but after 1.4.93 the firm has to establish its claim for deduction under Sections 30 to 38 and that it was not disentitled under Section 40(b) would apply. According to learned counsel, Section 40 is in nature of a proviso to Sections 30 to 38 and, therefore, even if the assessee establishes

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

EASTERN INVESTMENTS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,WEST BENGAL

section 12(2) of the Income- tax Act. Whether the loan is taken on an overdraft, or is a fixed deposit or on a debenture makes no difference in law. The only argument urged against allowing this deduction to be made is that the person who took the debentures was the party who sold the ordinary shares. It cannot

M/S.L.R.BROTHERS,INDO FLORA LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR vs. COMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR

Section 271(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act is a civil obligation and unless there is something in language of the statute indicating the need to establish element of mensrea, it is generally sufficient to prove that a default in complying with the statute has occurred. In view of the ratio of the aforesaid judgment of Apex Court

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. SALGAOCAR & BORS. VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

disallowed. We do not think that the language of sub-section (5) of Section 40A of the Act provides for or permits such a course. Sub-section (5) applies where an assessee claims a certain deduction saying that he has spent that money in providing, directly or indirectly, either as salary to an employee or in the provision of perquisite

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

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

Disallowance of certain fee, charge, etc. in the case of State Government Undertakings The   existing   provisions   of   section   40   specifies   the amounts which shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head “Profits and gains of business   or   profession”.   The   non­deductible   expense under the said section also includes statutory dues like fringe benefit tax, income­tax, wealth­tax

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Disallowance of unpaid statutory liability - Section 43B *** 35.2 Several cases have come to notice where taxpayers do not discharge their statutory liability such as in respect of excise duty, employer's contribution to provident fund, Employees' State Insurance Scheme, etc., for long periods of time, extending sometimes to several years. For the purpose of their income-tax assessments, they claim

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

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

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

12 of 55 executive and general administrative expenditure incurred outside India. f) The primary contention of the respondents is that Section 44C is wholly inapplicable to expenditure incurred exclusively for Indian branches, thereby allowing them to claim such expenses in full under Section 37(1) without being subject to the restrictive monetary cap under Section 44C. This claim essentially requires

M/S.SHASUN CHEMICALS AND DRUGS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

The appeals are allowed

12. Question No. 1: Whether expenditure incurred on issue of shares is eligible to be amortized under Section 35D of the Act? As already noted above, the Assessing Officer had allowed the claim of the assessee in this behalf for the Assessment Years 1994-95 and 1996-97. Such expenses which are incurred and amortization whereof is sought under Section

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

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

12) Learned counsel for the Respondent finally submitted that the decision of the High Court is well within the parameters of law and requires no interference. Discussion:- 13) The dispute in the present case revolves around the fact that whether the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2010 to the provisions of Section

M/S. SARAF EXPORTS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR - III

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

disallowing the deductions claimed under Section 80-IB of the Act, 1961. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is the subject matter of the present appeal. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4822 OF 2022 Page 3 of 36 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee has heavily relied upon the decision of this Court

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

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

12 of 27 Section 69A cannot be applied in his case may not be accepted. 3.4 It is submitted by learned ASG that assessee shall also not be permitted to claim such loss as a business expenditure in view of the express prohibition under Explanation 1 to Section 37(1) of the Act which was added w.e.f.01.04.1962. Reliance is placed

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