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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY

13. The question therefore to be answered is whether Section 14A, enables the Department to make disallowance on expenditure incurred

SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

13. The aforesaid interpretation of sections 194C conjointly with section 200 and rule 30(2) is unblemished and without any iota of doubt. We, thus, give our imprimatur to the view taken…...” (emphasis in bold supplied) 16.5.1. Having said that deducting tax at source is obligatory, this Court proceeded to deal with the issue as to whether the word 'payable

.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

NATIONAL CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V, DELHI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL

Section 13(1), and disbursed by way of “grants” to national or state level co-operative 4 societies, is eligible for deduction for determining the “taxable income” of the appellant-Corporation. This was, as stated herein, contrary to the earlier accounting practice and arose for the first time for the assessment year 1976-77. Accordingly, the factual matrix pertaining

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

13. Whether the claim for special deduction made by the assessee exclusively came only under Section 40(b)(iv) and that it never came under Section 36(1)(iii) of the 1961 Act as argued on behalf of the assessee? Legal Position Explained 14. Before enactment of FA 1992, broadly speaking, payment of interest by the firm to any partner

SHAH ORIGINALS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 24 MUMBAI

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

disallowing deduction under Section 80 HHC is illegal. In fine, the arguments are:- i. The foreign exchange credited to the EEFC account is a direct revenue from the export of garments. ii. The foreign exchange credited to the EEFC account is used for the business purposes of the assessee. 1 (1978) 4 SCC 358. 2 (2009) 13

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

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

In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed

13 of the Finance Act, 1950, the taxation laws in force in that State were repealed and the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was extended to that area; and, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 12 of the Finance Act, 1950, the Central Government issued a notification dated December 2, 1950, called the Taxation Laws (Part B States

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

13 of 1985, 260 of 1984 and 42 of 1986 are set-aside. Further, the appellate orders of the Income-tax Appel- late Tribunal, in so far as they pertain to the extent of disallowance of interest under Section

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

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

disallowable under Explanation 1 to Section 37(1). It is submitted that thus either way, neither can the Respondent- Assessee claim business loss due to him not being in the smuggling business nor can he claim business expenditure as the same is prohibited under Explanation 1 to Section 37(1). 3.6 Making above submissions and relying upon the above submissions

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/s. McMILLAN & CO

Section 31 (3) does not in terms say that the power to vary the assessment including the power to enhance it is subject to ally limitation. We have so far dealt with the questions at issue untrammelled by any authorities. We now turn to such authorities as have been placed before us. We take up first the decision

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

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

13,50,87,275 incurred at the head office directly in relation to the Indian branches. 4. The respondent vide notice dated 21.10.1999, was asked to explain why the expenses in question should not be subjected to the ceiling specified in Section 44C of the Act, 1961, and thus be disallowed

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

13 C.A.@S.L.P.(C)No.12859 of 2020 etc. another licence holder, viz., to Kerala State Co­operatives Consumers’ Federation Ltd., the High Court has held that there is no exclusivity so far as FL­1 licences are concerned.  It is the contention of the learned counsel that the disallowance under Section

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

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

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 40 (a) (ia) of the IT Act is retrospective in nature so as to apply to the present case or not. If it is so, then the tax duly paid by the assessee

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

13% per annum was worked out at Rs.99,49,264.00. 35.2. The first appellate authority i.e. CIT(A) agreed with the reasonings given by the Assessing Officer and disallowed the interest payment on borrowed fund claimed under Section

RAMNATH AND CO. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

disallowance for the non-qualifying services, after taking into consideration the totality of agreement, so that the balance of the royalty/fees, etc., which was for the services covered by Section 80-O, could be exempted. This Circular also clarified that trade enquires will not qualify for deduction under Section 80-O as also technical services rendered in India

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

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