UDAIPUR SAHKARI UPBOKTA THOK BHANDER LD. vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX

14(3)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. FACTS 3. The facts giving rise to this civil appeal are few and undisputed and may be briefly stated as follows. Appellant-society is a co-operative society registered under Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. Appellant is running a consumer co-operative store at Udaipur since

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

14,76,430/- 2011-12 Corporate Tax Assessment u/s 143(3) 2,11,61,29,711/- 2,11,61,29,411/- Thereafter, it went on to state:- "It is also to be noted that earlier refund was withheld vide notesheet dated 23.07.2018 after due approval due to non-availability of proceeding of return facility in ITBA

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

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

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

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY

3) were introduced to the main section by the Finance Act, 2006 with effect from 01.04.2007. 13. The question therefore to be answered is whether Section 14A, enables the Department to make disallowance on expenditure incurred for earning tax free income in cases where assessees like the present appellant, do not maintain separate accounts for the investments and other expenditures

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

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

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

disallowances. He submits that for the assessment year 1993–1994, the appellant had maintained complete set of books of account, audited profit and loss account and balance sheet which were duly filed before the assessing officer. Following assessment proceedings, assessing officer passed the assessment order for the assessment year 1993 – 1994 on 27.01.1994 under Section 143 (3

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

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

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

3) (2) Bangalore (2022 (8) TMI 966 (Karnataka) 10. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 Vs. Jay Infrastructure and Properties Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (10) TMI 1022 (Gujarat) 11. Smt. Jami Nirmala Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (2021) 437 ITR 573 (Orissa) 12. Smt. Smrutisudha Nayak Vs. Union of India (2021) 439 ITR 193 (Orissa) 13. Commissioner of Income

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COIMBATORE vs. M/S. LAKSHMI MACHINE WORKS

3), the term "indirect costs" means costs (not being direct costs) allocated in the ratio of the export turnover in respect of the trading goods to the total turnover. In other http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 18 words, indirect cost may be computed as under: (Total cost minus direct cost) x Export turnover in respect

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

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

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

disallowed). Separate penalty proceedings were initiated under sections 271(1)(a). 271(1)(c), 273/274 and 271-B of the Act. 2.12 The assessees then preferred appeals before the CIT(A). Subsequently on 08th December, 2000, the writ petitions filed by the assessees came to be dismissed by the High Court as the respective assessees moved the Appellate Authority prescribed

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

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. VIKRAM CEMENT vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE

disallow the credit on aforestated items on the ground that they were used for extraction of limestone in the mines and not within the factory in which cement (final product) was manufactured by the assessee. The assessee replied to each of the above three show-cause notices by which it submitted that the substantive definition of "input" as per clause

M/S. PUROLATOR INDIA LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-III

Appeal is disposed of accordingly

14. It can be seen that the common thread running through Section 4, whether it is prior to 1973, after the amendment in 1973, or after the amendment of 2000, is that excisable goods have to have a determination of “price” only “at the time of removal”. This basic feature of 18 Page 19 JUDGMENT Section 4 has never changed