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

132, or computing the income-tax chargeable under sub-section (4) of section 172 or sub-section (2) of section 174 or section 175 or sub-section(2) of section 176 or deducting income-tax under section 192 from income chargeable under the head “Salaries” or computation of the “advance tax” payable under Chapter XVII-C in a case

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

disallowed in the subsequent year, in the case of the then transferee company. The decision of the Delhi High Court, in Spice (supra), after discussing the decision in Saraswati Syndicate, went on to explain why assessing an amalgamating company, without framing the order in the name of the transferee company is fatal: “10. Section 481 of the Companies Act provides

MANSAROVAR COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI

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

132(5) of the Act. It appears that the said Rattan Gupta informed the assessees about notices under section 148 of the Act issued to each of them at the CA 5769/2022 Etc. Page 5 of 67 address of M/s Rattan Gupta & Co. at Daryaganj, New Delhi and affixed at the said premises of M/s Rattan Gupta & Co. 2.6 Meanwhile

CHANDRAKANT KRISHNARAO PRADHANAND ANOTHER vs. THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAYAND OTHERS

disallowed under certain circumstances. Sections 36, 37 and 38 deal with the alteration of import and export duties or tariff valuations. When the proper duty has- been paid according to the checks and inspections, if any, the goods are allowed to be cleared. Section 39, as the marginal note, shows correctly, deals with payment of duties not levied, short-levied

M/S. MANGALAM PUBLICATIONS, KOTTAYAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM

Bench: This Court & On Leave Being Granted, Civil Appeals Have Been Registered. 3.

132 of the Act in the business premises of the appellant on 31.12.1985. In the said search operation, books of account, registers and ledgers of the appellant were seized. Because of the aforesaid, the appellant was unable to maintain proper books of account as it was not possible for it 17 to obtain ledger balances to be brought down

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

section 30 of the Copyright Act, which transfers an interest in all or any of the rights contained in sections 14(a) and 14(b) of the Copyright Act, but is a “licence” which imposes restrictions or conditions for the use of computer software. Thus, it cannot be said that any of the EULAs that we are concerned with

RAMNATH AND CO. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

132 ITR 637, the Bombay High Court held that an assessee acting as a mere employment recruiting bureau was not entitled for deduction under Section 80-O and the services rendered in locating prospective candidates and collecting their bio-datas and conveying names of candidates to foreign employers did not represent services rendered outside India. Similarly

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(CENTRAL) vs. M/S. GWALIOR RAYON SILK MFG.(WVG.)CO.LTD

The appeal is partly allowed

disallowed the aforesaid claims, the assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who dismissed the appeals. On further appeal the Tribunal allowed the claims and depreciation on the roads as well as development rebate in regard to the transport viz., tractor, trailer etc. The Revenue filed an application under Section 256(1) of the Income

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

disallowed the deduction claim of the assessee under Section 80HHC of the Act on the ground that the 'profits of the business computed under Section 80HHC indicated a negative figure'. This view was accepted by all the Courts and affirmed by this Court in the aforesaid judgment. Before this Court, submission of the appellant/assessee was that a reading of Section

A.M. MOOSA vs. COMMNR OF INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM

disallowed the claim on the ground that the ’profits of the business’ computed under Section 80-HHC indicated a negative figure. An appeal was preferred before Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Cochin Bench, hereinafter, referred to as ’the CIT(A)’. The said appellate authority also was of the same view and dismissed the appeal. The assessee appellant preferred an appeal

P.R. PRABHAKAR vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, COIMBATORE

disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the premise that they having incurred loss in respect of export business were not entitled thereto. An appeal preferred thereagainst was rejected by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, however, on further appeal preferred by the Appellant opined that the commissioner received by the Appellant from the other exporters

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

KARAMCHAND PREMCHAND PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUJARAT

Accordingly fails and is dismissed

132 I.T.R. 559, relied on. JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2230 (NT) of 1977. From the Judgment and Order dated 13.12.76 of the Gujarat High Court in Income Tax Reference No. 36 of 1972. Mrs. A.K. Verma, for JBD & Co. for the Appellant. G.C. Sharma, E.U.Eradi and T.R. Talwar for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S TRANVANCORE TITANIUM PRODUCTS LTD

Section 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 the questions that arose for consideration of the High Court were: "(a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the loan redemption reserve amount to Rs.1 crore is a reserve and not a provision

2TATE BANK OF PATIALA, PATIALA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA

The appeals are allowed

disallowed. The assessee has filed special leave petitions in this Court directly against the aforesaid order of the Appellate Tribunal. 4. Special leave petition (C) No. 27551 of 1995, relating to the same assessee and involving consideration of the same question, relates to the assessment year 1985-86. The Appellate Tribunal finally decided against the assessee following the earlier decision