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

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

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 passed u/s 158BC(c) of the Act and the manner of computation shall be in accordance with Section 158BB

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA MILLS

The appeal is dismissed

145, that depreciation is a proper deduction in arriving at the correct income from business. No doubt section 34 provides that the deduction shall be allowed only if the prescribed particulars are furnished. This only ensures that correct information is available to the Income-tax Officer for allowing the proper deduction. But this cannot be construed to mean that where

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

disallowance on account of bad debts and interest. A further appeal was preferred to the ITAT, which allowed the assessee’s plea. The Revenue sought an appeal to the Bombay High Court under Section 260A of the IT Act. The Bombay High Court ruled that no question of law requiring a decision arose in the appeal and consequently declined

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S WOODWARD GOVERNOR INDIA P. LTD

disallowed the deduction/debit. This fact is important. It indicates the double standards adopted by the Department. 11. The dispute in this batch of civil appeals centers around the year(s) in which deduction would be admissible for the increased liability under Section 37(1). 12. We quote hereinbelow Section 28(i), Section 29 Section 37(1) and Section 145

M/S JINDAL EQUIPMENT LEASING CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

disallowed that claim; that view was upheld. This Court stated that : (SCC pp. 679-81, paras 5-6) “5. … In amalgamation two or more companies are fused into one by merger or by taking over by another. Reconstruction or “amalgamation” has no precise legal meaning. The amalgamation is a blending of two or more existing undertakings into one undertaking

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

2. DESCRIPTION OF OTHER RIGHTS AND LIMITATIONS xxx xxx xxx Limitations on Reverse Engineering, Decompilation, and Disassembly - You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, except and only to the extent that such activity is expressly permitted by applicable law nothwithstanding this limitation.” “4. COPYRIGHT- All title and intellectual property rights in and to the SOFTWARE PRODUCT

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

145 of the IT Act, NBFCs are bound to follow the method of accounting prescribed by RBI. Hence, a statutory debit or a statutory charge under RBI Directions 1998 issued under Section 45JA of the RBI Act cannot form part of the “real income” and, consequently, it cannot be subjected to tax under the IT Act. According to the appellant

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

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 under section 132A shall

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, KERALA vs. M/S. TARA AGENCIES

Appeal is allowed and the

disallowed the claim of the respondent assessee. 5. The respondent assessee aggrieved by the said http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 16 order preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The appeal filed by the respondent assessee was allowed on the ground that the respondent assessee was a small scale industrial unit

HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD. vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,DELHI

The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs

disallowance of Rs. 16,011/- out of sales conference expenses has not been disposed of. In view of the factual position explained above, it is submitted that order may be rectified accordingly. Yours faithfully, For SHRIRAM HONDA POWER EQUIPMENTS LIMITED Sd/- (AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY) Dated: 9.12.2002" 7. In the rectification application, the assessee pointed out the earlier judgment of the coordinate

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

RAMNATH AND CO. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

2)To give “GELAZUR’ all the accurate information in respect of the standard, quantity, price, quality, time of shipment, etc. promptly, whenever the purchase of the products is made 7 3)To carry out technical guidance for processing and for quality control and inspection of the products and to advise “GELAZURE” of the results. 4)To inform GELAZURE’ regularly about

M/S. ROTORK CONTROLA INDIA (P) LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed in favour of the assessee with no order as to

2 This provision was made by the assessee on account of warranty claims likely to arise on the sales effected by the appellant and to cover up that expenditure. It may be noted that since the provision made was for Rs.10,18,800/- which exceeded the actual expenditure, the appellant reversed Rs.5,00,246 as Reversal of Excess Provision. Consequently

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

145. Mr Rao submitted that since, by reason of the provisions of Article 105(2), the alleged bribe-takers had committed no offence, the alleged bribe-givers had also committed no offence. Article 105(2) does not provide that what is otherwise an offence is not an offence when it is committed by a Member of Parliament

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VI vs. VIRTUAL SOFT SYSTEMS LTD

The appeal is hereby dismissed leaving parties to bear their own cost

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

2) This batch of appeals has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 07.02.2012 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in ITA Nos. 216, 398, 403, 404 and 680 of 2011 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court upheld the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short ‘the Tribunal’) dated

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. M/S. GENERAL INSURANCE CORPN.OF INDIA

Section 143 (3) before the CIT (Appeals). Disallowance of Rs. 1,04,28,500/- in respect of stamp duty and registration fees incurred in connection with the increase in the authorized share capital were bifurcated by the CIT (Appeals) into two categories, one relating to the increase in authorized share capital from Rs. 75 crores to Rs. 250 crores