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

disallowance of deductions specified in sub-clause if the CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2377 OF 2020 (@ SLP (C) NO.1169 OF 2019) VODAFONE IDEA LTD (EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED) VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 26 (2) & ANR.) 37 “return is furnished beyond the due date”; and addition of income as specified in sub-clause

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

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

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

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

C) Nos. 18426, 23722, 18425, 18423 of 2015 and 12282, 16141 and 16142 of 2016 and Civil Appeal No. 14689 of 2015 were disposed of by the Andhra Pradesh High Court by following the Madras High Court’s impugned judgment in Civil Appeal No. 7906 of 2002. Civil Appeal No. 8488 of 2009 and SLP No. 25055 of 2009 will

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

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

C) No.24548/2016) Digitally signed by SWETA BALODI Date: 2022.10.13 10:56:35 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified 2 J U D G M E N T S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. 1. Leave granted. Berger Paints India Ltd. v Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-IV & Anr.1 was the lead matter while hearing this batch of appeals. However, the parties agreed

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

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

SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

c) the effect of proviso making it clear that the intent of the main provision is only to disallow the outstanding or payable amounts has not been considered; and (d) the Court has widened the scope of consequences provided under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act based on the scope of Sections 194C and 201 of the Act, although

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

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

Appeal is Allowed

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

C) No.3530/2019) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai …Appellant Versus M/s I­Ven Interactive Limited, Mumbai …Respondent J U D G M E N T M.R. SHAH, J. Leave granted. 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 27.06.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Income Tax Appeal No.94 of 2016, by which

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

C. Bhansali on 06.03.2007 was in the ordinary course of its business. 8. It was contended that since the builder/borrower defaulted in repaying the amount, the respondent assessee decided to write off the same as a bad debt under 3 (2012) 3 SCC 784. 5 Section 36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(2) of the Act. It was contended

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

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

c) of the Act came to be confirmed by both the CIT (A) and the ITAT. Accordingly, the assessee filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Act against the Penalty order, before the High Court. The High Court while deciding both the cases together, qua the first question, decided in favour of the Revenue and the rental premises

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

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

C) NO. 20044 OF 2015) THE CITIZEN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HYDERABAD .....APPELLANT(S) VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -9 (1), HYDERABAD .....RESPONDENT(S) J U D G M E N T A.K. SIKRI, J. Leave granted. 2) The appellant herein, after losing in all the fora below, has knocked the doors of this

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 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

C) NO. 4063 OF 2020) PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) - 2 ...PETITIONER(S) VERSUS M/S. MAHAGUN REALTORS (P) LTD. ...RESPONDENT(S) J U D G M E N T S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. 1. Special leave to appeal granted. With consent of counsels, this appeal was heard finally. This appeal arises from an order1 of the Delhi High Court