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

THE MAVILAYI SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CALICUT

Bench: Us, The Assessing Officer Denied Their Claims For Deduction, Relying Upon Section 80P(4) Of The It Act, Holding That As Per The Audited Receipt & 2

disallow deductions claimed under section 80P of the IT Act, notwithstanding that mere nomenclature or registration certificates issued under the Kerala Act would show that the assessees are primary agricultural credit societies. These divergent decisions led to a reference order dated 09.07.2018 to a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court. 4 5. The Full Bench of the Kerala High

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

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

Section 11-B (2) in support of his submission that the only persons eligible to make a claim for refund would be the manufacturer, his buyer and a class of persons as notified by the Central Government. On the basis of the above submission, he states that there is absolutely no necessity for any verification to be made

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

CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THRISSUR

disallowed. This amount was added back to the taxable income of the assessee, for which a demand notice and challan was accordingly issued. This order of the assessing officer dated 24th January, 2005, was challenged in appeal by the assessee on various grounds. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’], vide its order

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

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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. 6 vs. M/S I VEN INTERACTIVE LTD

Appeal is Allowed

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

disallowance of Rs. 8,91,17,643/­ under Section 14A of the 1961 Act, read with Rule 8 of the Income Tax Rules and computed total income at Rs.5,52,45,930/­. 3.2 Being aggrieved by the assessment order dated 24.12.2008, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned C.I.T (Appeals). The learned C.I.T (Appeals) allowed the appeal vide order dated

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

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

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

2 SCC 759 as well as Apex Laboratories (P) Ltd. v. CIT, (2022) 7 SCC 98. It is submitted that Explanation 1 to Section 37(1) of the Act expressly disallows any expenditure incurred by an assessee for any purpose which is an offence or is prohibited by law, which may be claimed as an expenditure incurred for the purpose

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA MILLS

The appeal is dismissed

13 of 21 404 (AP)] for the Assessment Year 1979-80 the assessee, a company, filed its return of income showing a loss of over rupees one crore. Later, a revised return was filed showing a loss of over rupees one crore though for a lesser amount than in the original return. Income-tax Officer, however, computed the current profit

THE CITIZEN COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR G.RANGA RAO. HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed reportable

disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 80P of the Act is concerned, the CIT(A) rejected the claim for deduction thereby upholding the order of the Assessing Officer. While doing so, the CIT(A) 7 followed the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in the case of the appellant itself in respect of Assessment Years

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

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

13. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata Vs. Veerprabhu Marketing Limited (2016) 388 ITR 574 (Calcutta) 14. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Kolkata Vs. M/s. Salasar Stock Broking Ltd. 2016 (8) TMI 1131 (Calcutta) 15. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-Central, Jaipur Vs. Smt. Daksha Jain, Sirohi 2019 (8) TMI 474 (Rajasthan) 16. Dr. A.V. Sreekumar Vs. The Commissioner

M/S. I.C.D.S. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

disallowed claims, both of depreciation and higher rate, on the ground that the assessee’s use of these vehicles was only by way of leasing out to others and not as actual user of the vehicles in the business of running them on hire. It had merely financed the purchase of these assets and was neither the owner nor user

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) 2 vs. M/S MAHAGUN REALTORS (P) LTD

The appeal is allowed, in the above terms, without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

13. Learned counsel urged that the notice under Section 153A by the AO (despite the intimation by Respondent about the amalgamation on 30.05.2008 and the statement of the director at the time of search) issued in the name of MRPL, a non-existing entity, was invalid and initiation of proceedings against non- existent entity was void-ab-initio. 14. Counsel

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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX 4 BENGALURU 2 vs. M/S JUPITER CAPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED

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

disallowance of capital loss claimed by the assessee of Rs.164,48,55,840/- by holding that there is extinguishment of rights of 153340900 shares when no such extinguishment of rights is made out by Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND Date: 2025.01.08 11:04:03 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified 2 the assessee as required under section 2