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

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,NEW DELHI vs. M/S ELI LILLY & COMPANY (INDIA) P.LTD

13 learned counsel, are undoubtedly taxable in India in the hands of the recipient. Nevertheless, no tax would be deductible at source thereon as they are made outside India and are not subject to the TDS provisions. 15. On the point of interpretation of Section 192(1), learned counsel submitted that the said section can be divided into two distinct

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

13 has been stated that multiple issues on which addition have been made giving rise to the demand liabilities, and several of such issues are also recurring in nature. … … … 10. That it is also submitted that the order dated 23rd July, 2018 passed by the Assessing Officer is an order under Section 143(1)(D) for the assessment years

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

13 SCC 225 Civil Appeal No.2948 of 2023 etc. Page 24 of 91 c. In response to the principles for examining the constitutional validity of taxation statutes, he submitted that the test of vice of discrimination in a taxing statute is less rigorous. He submitted that the Parliament is entitled to make policy choices and adopt appropriate classifications given

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

13 said sum so received by the due date so defined under the respective statutes, the same was allowed as deduction while computing the income under the provisions of the IT Act. Therefore, Section 36 (1)(va) of the IT Act had limited operation to allow such sum so received from the employees. The deduction from the employees’ salary

RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD JAIPUR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (ASSESSMENT)

In the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI

C) where any refund is due under sub- section (1), reduce the amount of such refund by an amount equivalent to the additional income tax calculated under sub- clause (A) or sub-clause (B), as the case may be.” 13. The amendments brought by Finance Act, 1993 with retrospective effect i.e. from 01.04.1989 are fully attracted with regard to assessment

MODI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MODINAGAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI

The appeals are allowed in the above

13 of 39 assessment" in Section 214(1). We may forewarn that this is one of those questions which does not admit of one clear-cut answer. The very difference of opinion among the several High Courts in the country and the several shades of opinion expressed by them bear eloquent testimony to it. Whichever view one adopts

M/S. SOUTHERN TECHNOLOGIES LTD. vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, COIMBATORE

13 can be no debit to the reserve. Under the vertical system, “profits available for appropriation” are post-tax profits. Appropriation to reserves can be made only when there is a surplus. 5. Under Clause 7(1)(a) of Part – III of Schedule VI of Companies Act, 1956 – provision, inter alia, is to provide for depreciation, renewals or diminution

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

C) No. 24756 of 2014) 9. This appeal is by the revenue. Respondent is the assessee, details of which have already been mentioned in the previous appeal. 9.1. For the assessment year 2002-03, respondent filed its return of income on 31.10.2001 declaring net loss of Rs. 37,12,20,853.00. Initially the return was processed under Section 143(1

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. We quote hereinbelow Section 28(i), Section 29 Section 37(1) and Section

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS PVT.LTD

The appeal is allowed without

disallowing deductions, allowance or relief. 13. One thing further to be noticed is that intimation under section 143(1)(a) is given without prejudice to the provisions of section 143(2). Though technically the intimation issued was deemed to be a demand notice issued under section 156, that did not per se preclude the right of the Assessing Officer

JEYAR CONSULTANT & INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,MADRAS

13 of 24 Page 14 JUDGMENT under Section 3(c)(i), one necessarily has to reduce the profits under Section 3(c)(ii). Section 80-HHC makes it clear that in arriving at profits earned from export of both self-manufactured goods and trading goods, the profits and losses in both the trades have to be taken into consideration

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA MILLS

The appeal is dismissed

C" [(1991) 192 ITR 700 (Guj.)] the assessee withdrew the claim of depreciation in http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 21 the revised return. Income-tax Officer nevertheless allowed depreciation, which was claimed in the original return. The Court noticed from the provisions of section 32(1) of the said Act that the deduction in respect

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 3 vs. ABHISAR BUILDWELL P. LTD

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

c) issue B for which information available. AO not entitled to reopen entire assessment and undertake Assessmen t u/s 153A could only be done in respect of issue A relating to which incriminatin g material is found during search. On conclusion of assessmen t u/s 153A, Revenue may, basis other information, proceed u/s 147 and/or 263. CA No. 6580/2021

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

ASSOCIATED STONE INDUSTRIES (KOTAH) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJASTHAN

The appeal is disposed of as above and the matter is

C) NO. 10840 OF 1980) J U D G M E N T Paripoornan, J. The appellant is a public limited company. It was incorporated in the then Indian State of Kotah on 17.1.1945 for carrying on the business of quarrying stones. it is an assessee to Income-tax. This appeal is filed in pursuance to the certificate of fitness

ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

C) No. 36782/2016. 10 amount of Rs. 1,03,54,784 that it had not deducted as TDS, along with interest under section 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act amounting to Rs. 15,76,567. The appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax [“CIT”] was dismissed by an order dated 23.01.2004. However, the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate