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

Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 12.02.1992 was issued by the Assessing Officer disallowing 25% of the 3 depreciation

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

Appeal is Allowed

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

Section 143(3) of the 1961 Act by making disallowance of Rs. 8,91,17,643/­ under Section 14A of the 1961 Act, read

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

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

Section 143 (3) of the Act after making additions and providing for certain disallowances. He submits that for the assessment

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

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

143(3) pending and abated Reassessme nt u/s 147 pending and abated Unabated assessmen ts i. No Incriminating found in material search. AO entitled to assess entire income, a pending regular assessme nt stood abated. Scope of assessment u/s 153A must be restricted to grounds of reopening of assessment, which was pending on date of search and stood abated

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

The appeals are allowed in the above

Section 143 or 144. Likewise, even though there is a shortfall in payment of tax according to the calculation made in the order of assessment, the assessee is obliged to pay interest on the seventy five percent of the amount of shortfall only upto the date of the assessment order, i.e., the date on which the amount of advance

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

disallowed i.e. Rs. 10,28,462.00, Rs. 57,51,520.00 and Rs. 1,15,000.00. He concluded that by adding these figures the total amount of Rs. 68,94,982.00 was the income in respect of which inaccurate particulars had been furnished. The tax was computed at Rs. 31,71,692.00. It was held that the tax sought

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

Section 143(3) of the Act the claim of 17 depreciation on non-compete fee was disallowed by following the earlier

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 MUMBAI vs. M/S. ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

143(2) was issued to the assessee.  The Assessing Officer vide its order dated 27.03.2006 held that during the year under consideration, the assessee   company   was   in   receipt   of   both   taxable   and non­taxable   dividend   income.     Accordingly,   the   dividend   on investment exempt under Section 10(23G) was considered by the A.O.   for   the   purpose   of   disallowance

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

disallowed under Section 40(a)(iib) of the Act. Against   order   of   the   Principal   Commissioner,   Income   Tax,   dated 2 C.A.@S.L.P.(C)No.12859 of 2020 etc. 25.09.2018, the appellant herein filed appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short, ‘the Tribunal’) in ITA No.536/Coch/2018. 4. With   respect   to   Assessment   Year   2015­2016   assessment against the appellant was completed under Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA MILLS

The appeal is dismissed

143(1) is deemed to be incomplete or inadequate if proper depreciation is not allowed. These provisions also indicate, along with section 28 which requires that the income from a business has to be computed in accordance with the provisions of sections 29 to 44, and read with section 145, that depreciation is a proper deduction in arriving

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

Section 143 (3) of the Act, referred to the statement of Shri S.K. Gupta recorded during the search operations and held that the said person had not rendered any service to the assessee so as to receive such payments. Therefore, the assessing officer disallowed

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

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; (d) The assets seized under section 132 or requisitioned

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

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

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the IT Act’) was completed on 28.12.2007. The Assessing Officer, vide order dated 12.10.2009, disallowed

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

SHITAL FIBERS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA

143(2). The appellant relied upon the decision of Madras High Court in the case of SCM Creations v. ACIT3 wherein it was held that Sub-section (9) of Section 80-IA does not bar computation of deductions provided under different provisions of the IT Act. But, it merely restricts the allowability of deductions to the extent of profits

BASIR AHMED SISODIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal is allowed

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

143.  (1) (a) Where a return has been made under section 139,   or   in  response   to  a   notice   under   sub­section   (1)   of section 142,­ (i) if any tax or interest is found due on the basis of such   return,   after   adjustment   of   any   tax deducted at source, any advance tax paid and any   amount   paid   otherwise

DILIP N. SHROFF vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI &ANR

The appeal is allowed

143 or section 144 or section 147 (reduced by the expenditure incurred bona fide by him for the purpose of making or earning any income included in the total income but which has been disallowed