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

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

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

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

The appeals are allowed

120 tpa by installation of additional plant and machinery. The cost of this phase, including construction of a modern administration block at Cuddalore, is estimated at Rs.286 lakhs.” 6. The assessee incurred a sum of Rs.45,51,890/- towards the aforesaid share issue expenses and claimed 1/10th of the aforesaid share issue expenses each year under Section

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

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

120  of  2015,  C.A. No. 7395  of  2012, C.A. No. 7394  of  2012, C.A.   No.   121     of     2015,     C.A.   No.   122     of     2015,     C.A. Nos.1430­1432 of  2018 @ SLP(C) No. 8507­ 8509  of  2012,  C.A. No. 128  of  2015, C.A.No

JT.COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,SURAT vs. SAHELI LEASING & INDUSTRIES LTD

Appeals stand allowed as mentioned hereinabove but with

disallowed out of depreciation. Penalty proceedings under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act were initiated. In response to the show cause notice issued by the Revenue, Assessee filed its reply denying the allegations and contending that no penalty can be imposed on it, when returned income was NIL. 15. Penalty was sought to be imposed in respect

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

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

4 penalty should not be imposed for the DTA sales made by the appellant   in   contravention   of   the   EXIM   Policy,   that   too   after having availed the exemptions under the exemption notification on the import of green house equipment, raw materials like Live Rose   Plants   and   consumables   like   planting   materials   and fertilizers.   After   according   opportunity   of   being   heard,   the Additional Commissioner

HERO CYCLES (P) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)

Appeal is allowed, thereby setting aside the order of the

120/-. The Assessing Officer, after recording the aforesaid reasons, did not allow the deduction of the entire amount and re-calculated the figures, thereby disallowed the aforesaid claim to the extent of Rs.16,39,010/-. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The CIT (Appeals) set aside the order of the Assessing Officer

S.A. BUILDERS LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

B. SINHA & MARKANDEY KATJU JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising out of Special Leave Petition Nos. 21707-21710/2004) [with CA Nos. 5812 /2006 @ SLP(Civil) Nos. 1300-1301/2005] MARKANDEY KATJU, J. Leave granted. These two appeals involve common questions of law and fact and hence are being disposed of by a common judgment. Since