BASIR AHMED SISODIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal is allowed

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

Disallowed deduction U/s.24(1)  as per discussion  7200/­ 2. Additions in gross profit  10000/­ 3. Additions on the basis of less  Household expenses withdrawals 18000/­ 4. Unexplained credits as per discussions  226000/­  261200/­ Total taxable Income Tax          348700/­ Assessment was made. Necessary forms were issued. Notice be issued separately for imposition of penalty under Section 272(1)(c).” 3. Aggrieved

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

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

142, Sub-Sections CA No. 6580/2021 Etc. Page 12 of 59 2 and 3 of Section 143, Section 144 and Section 145 of the Act and the AO would proceed to pass an assessment order and determine the tax payable u/s 158BC(c) of the Act. In other words, the order of assessment on undisclosed income of block period gets

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

disallowance of ITC on goods and services used in the construction of buildings could be a logical corollary only if the buildings were intended to be sold as stock by the developer instead of being further used for providing taxable goods or services. There is no contradiction in promoting ITC on goods and services used for the construction of buildings

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS PVT.LTD

The appeal is allowed without

3). With effect from April 1, 1989, the provisions underwent substantial and material changes. A new scheme was introduced and the new substituted section 143(1) prior to the subsequent substitution with effect from June 1, 1999, in clause (a), a provision was made that where a return was filed under section 139 or in response to a notice under

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. CALCUTTA KNITWEARS, LUDHIANA

142, sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 143 [section 144 and section 145]shall, so far as may be, apply; (c) The Assessing Officer, on determination of the undisclosed income of the block period in accordance with this Chapter, shall pass an order of assessment and determine the tax payable by him on the basis of such assessment

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

142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ’the Act’) The brief facts necessary to decide this appeal are as under: On 26th February, 1993 the appellant filed its return for assessment year 1992-93 and followed it up with a revised return. The Assessing Officer made an order dated 27th March, 1995 under Section

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

Appeal is Allowed

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

142(1) of the 1961 Act on the ground that the said notices were not served upon the assessee as the assessee­company never received those notices and the subsequent notices served and received by the assessee­company   were   beyond   the   period   of   limitation prescribed under proviso to Section 143 of the 1961 Act. 3.1 That   the   Assessing   Officer   vide   assessment   order

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

142(1) of the Act, calling for various details. The assessee filed its response thereto. The scrutiny assessment was completed by the AO under Section 143(3) on 30.12.2011, determining the total income of the assessee at ₹ 87,880/-. The assessee contended that an amount of ₹ 10 crores was deposited with one M/s C. Bhansali Developers Pvt. Ltd. towards acquisition

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

MODI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MODINAGAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI

The appeals are allowed in the above

142 empowers the Income Tax Officer to make enquiry before assessment. Sections 143 and 144 lay down the manner in which the Income Tax Officer will make an assessment of income. Under sub-section (1) of Section 143, the Income Tax Officer will straightaway assess the total income or loss of the assessee and determine the sum payable

RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD JAIPUR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (ASSESSMENT)

In the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI

disallowing 25% of the 3 depreciation, restricting the depreciation to 75%. Additional tax under Section 143(1-A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.8,63,64,827/- was demanded. The assessee filed an application under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 18.02.1992 praying for rectification of the demand. The assessee also filed a petition

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S JINDAL STEEL THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

Appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

142 (1) of the Act were issued calling upon the assessee to furnish details for clarification which were complied with by the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, the issue relating to deduction under Section 80 IA of the Act came up for consideration. Assessee had claimed deduction under the said 6 provision of a sum amounting to Rs.80

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

M/S APEX LABORATORIES P. LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT II

The appeal is dismissed without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

3. After the circular was issued, on 22.11.2012, Apex was issued a notice under Section 142(1) of the IT Act, to explain why the expenditure of ₹ 4,72,91,159/- incurred towards gifting freebies such as hospitality, conference fees, gold coins, LCD TVs, fridges, laptops, etc. to medical practitioners for creating awareness about the health supplement ‘Zincovit’, should

JT.COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,SURAT vs. SAHELI LEASING & INDUSTRIES LTD

Appeals stand allowed as mentioned hereinabove but with

3) of the Act was passed on 27.2.1998, showing total income of Rs. NIL for assessment year 1995-1996. 14. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed that Assessee had claimed depreciation, which was viewed to be incorrect. Thus, an amount of Rs. 24,22,531/- C.As. @ SLP (C) No. 5241 of 2007 etc…. (contd.) 6 was disallowed

M/S.VIRTUAL SOFT SYSTEMS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-I

3 of 17 Rs. 63,43,750.00 The Commissioner of Income Tax set aside the order of assessment and directed the Assessing Officer to frame a fresh assessment and fresh proceedings concluded with an order of assessment dated 19.03.2002 in which it was found that the appellant had a loss of Rs. 11,02,255.00. It was because: (i) Since