ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

D work which enables educational institutions with Information and Communication Technology infrastructure for making education reach the public at large solely for charitable purpose and further reliance was placed upon ICAI Accounting Research Foundation v. DGIT(E)70, Bureau of Indian Standards v. DGIT(E)71 and GS1 India v. DGIT(E)72. 66. Mr. Ajay Vohra, learned senior counsel

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

D G M E N T R.F. Nariman, J. 1. I.A. Nos.192273 and 192277 of 2019 are allowed. Leave granted in the Special Leave Petition arising out of Diary No.31268 of 2019. 1 Digitally signed by Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2021.01.12 16:17:51 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified 2. These appeals have been filed by co-operative societies

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

d’ to sub Section 11-B (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and was therefore, entitled to be paid the amount claimed as refund? 2. Whether the Tribunal after finding that the burden of duty was passed on by the applicant to its various dealers by issue of credit notes was right in concluding that the ingredients of Section

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

D G M E N T 2 Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. The assessee in C.A. No. 1143 of 2011, a Scheduled Bank, filed its return of income for the assessment year 2002- 2003 on 24th October, 2002, declaring total income of Rs. 61,15,610/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income

SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

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 such an approach is impermissible while interpreting a provision in the taxing statute. 10.3. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued in the alternative that the said sub-clause

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

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

Appeal is Allowed

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

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 the High   Court   has   dismissed   the   said   appeal   preferred   by   the Revenue and has confirmed the orders passed

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELGAUM vs. M/S. AKAY COSMETICS PVT. LTD

2) of the Act. http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 16 For the aforestated reasons, we hold that the department was right in disallowing deduction for expenses in respect of freight, insurance and handling charges from the assessable value for the period 9/88 to 3/91. Now coming to the question of deduction claimed by the assessee

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

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

d. Section 158BB(3) imposed the burden on the assessee to prove that any undisclosed income had already been disclosed in any return of income filed by the assessee, before the commencement of search or of the requisition, as the case may be. e. In short, assessment on undisclosed income for block period is an independent assessment from the rest

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

D of the Act. That chapter deals with heads of income. Section 28 of the Act deals with the chargeability of income to tax under the head ‘Profits and Gains of Business or Profession’. The other deductions that an assessee can claim are elaborated under Section 36 of the Act, which opens with the phrase “the deductions provided

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

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

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 Court by means of the present appeal seeking the benefit of Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The Assessing Officer held that deduction

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA MILLS

The appeal is dismissed

d) extra-shift allowance double shift and triple shift; (xii) total depreciation; (xiii) investment allowance claimed (also indicate rate); (xiv) remarks (indicate the amount of initial depreciation, investment allowance or development rebate allowed in respect of the assets in an earlier year). (2) Where the depreciation in respect of any asset is not admissible as a deduction under clause

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

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

D G M E N T D.K. JAIN, J. 1. In all these appeals, by grant of special leave, by the Revenue, the common question of law relates to the claim of the assessee for depreciation under Section 32 of the 1 Page 2 JUDGMENT Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”). The assessment years involved

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

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 rejecting the appeal, by the present appellant (hereafter “the revenue”) and affirming the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) which quashed

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