M/S. SIDDACHALAM EXPORTS PRIVATE LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE DELHI-III

The appeal is allowed; the

14,63,360/- and the admissible 3 drawback should be `3,56,328/- as against the claim of `49,57,536/-. The consignments in question were seized under Section 110 of the Act. However, subsequently the goods were released provisionally on execution of bond and bank guarantee by the exporter. 6. On 11th September, 2003, Assistant Commissioner of Customs (SIIB

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

SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

14 10. Assailing the order so passed by the High Court in summary dismissal of the appeal as also the views expressed in the assessment and appellate orders, learned counsel for the assessee-appellant has urged before us multiple contentions on the scope and applicability of Section 194C of the Act as also Section 40(a)(ia) thereof

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

14 disallows several such provisions under Sections 40A(7), 43B, 40 and 40A. Such disallowances alone could be added back

M/S MUNJAL SALES CORPORATION vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,LUDHIANA

Section 36(1)(iii) of the 1961 Act as argued on behalf of the assessee? Legal Position Explained 14. Before enactment of FA 1992, broadly speaking, payment of interest by the firm to any partner of the firm constituted Business Disallowance

SHAH ORIGINALS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 24 MUMBAI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI

14 under the FERA. Therefore, we must necessarily examine the gain from foreign currency fluctuation from the perspective of Section 80 HHC. 7.2 Let us refer to the judgment reported in Topman Exports (supra). The case considers a situation, viz., statutory flair/character of the revenue receipt and treatment, as eligible for deduction under Section 80HHC. The case considers the interplay

NATIONAL CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V, DELHI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL

Section 37(1) of the IT Act stand fulfilled since: a. the expenditure has been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business being carried out by the assessee; b. it has been expended during the accounting year in 14 question. c. it is not on any personal account of the assessee; d. it is not in the nature

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

disallowances. In terms of this scheme, Section 40 (which too starts with a non- obstante clause overriding Sections 30-38), deals with what cannot be deducted in computing income under the head “Profits and Gains of Business and Profession”. Likewise, Section 40A(2) opens with a non-obstante clause and spells out what expenses and payments are not deductible

BASIR AHMED SISODIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal is allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR

disallowed: Provided further  that where adjustments are made under the first proviso, an intimation shall be sent to the assessee, notwithstanding that no tax or interest is found due from him after making the said adjustments: Provided also that an intimation for any tax or interest due under this clause shall not be sent after the expiry of two years

KILLICK NIXON LTD., MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMNR. OF INCOME TAX,MUMBAI

In the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High

Section 143(3) of the Act disallowing certain claims and rejecting the contentions of the assessee. The appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Appellate Authority by its order dated 25.09.1998 confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer in respect of the following items: (a) Premium amount of Rs. 3,57,153.00 (b) Depreciation

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

disallowed the claim of depreciation. 9.3. Assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A), Chennai. CIT(A) vide the order dated 27.02.2006 held that the assessee could carry on the business in software development export and training by restraining M/s. Pentamedia Graphics Limited from carrying out the same activities. Assessee had acquired commercial right to conduct training programmes with the use 14

KERALA STATE BEVERAGES MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING CORPORATION LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1)

Accordingly, the civil appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

14. In the instant case the gallonage fee, licence fee, shop rental (kist), surcharge and turnover tax are the amounts of which assessee claims that they are not attracted by Section 40(a)(iib) of the Act.  On the other hand it is the case of the respondent/revenue that all the said components attract the ingredients of Section

M/S.SHASUN CHEMICALS AND DRUGS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

The appeals are allowed

14 This Section deals with deductions in respect of the amount paid by the assessee as an employer towards the setting up or formation of, or as contribution to, any fund, trust, company etc. The condition is that such sum has to be paid for the purpose and to the extent provided by or under clause (iv) or clause

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (IT)-I, MUMBAI vs. M/S. AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK LTD

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

14 E. Issue to be determined ........................................................ 19 F. Analysis .............................................................................. 20 (i) Basic Principles of Interpretation .................................................. 21 (ii) Interpreting Section 44C of the Act, 1961 ..................................... 28 (iii) Whether the principle of law barring exclusive expenditure under Section 44C is approved by this Court?.............................................. 49 (iv) Application to the facts at hand ................................................ 51 G. Conclusion .......................................................................... 53 Civil Appeal

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

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

disallowable under Explanation 1 to Section 37(1). It is submitted that thus either way, neither can the Respondent- Assessee claim business loss due to him not being in the smuggling business nor can he claim business expenditure as the same is prohibited under Explanation 1 to Section 37(1). 3.6 Making above submissions and relying upon the above submissions

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 11 (1) BANGALORE vs. M/S ACE MULTI AXES SYSTEMS LTD

Appeals are disposed of in the same terms

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL

disallowance has to be held justified. xxx xxx xxx 17. Summary: Section 80 IB is an incentive provision. It stipulates deduction in respect of profits and gains from certain industrial undertakings. Within this section a plethora of industries and business types have been given the benefit of such deduction if they fulfill the conditions mentioned in the concerned sub section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KOLKATA XII vs. M/S CALCUTTA EXPORT COMPANY

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL

14) For deciding as to the retrospective effect of the amendment made by Finance Act, 2010, it is required to see the Section as it stands before and after the amendment made through the Finance Act, 2010 and the purpose of such insertion or amendment to the said provisions. The provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) came into force

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

14. Shri N. Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General, has made detailed submissions. He brought our attention to provisions regarding taxation on goods and services in the pre-GST and post-GST eras. He submitted that in the GST regime, the taxable event is one common event, namely, the supply of goods and services. He invited the attention of the Court