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

D G M E N T     R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.    1. Leave granted. 2.   These appeals are preferred, by the State­owned Undertaking, Kerala State Beverages Manufacturing & Marketing Corporation Ltd., a 1 Digitally signed by Rajni Mukhi Date: 2022.01.03 16:37:04 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified C.A.@S.L.P.(C)No.12859 of 2020 etc. company registered under the Companies

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

The appeals are allowed in the above

17 of 39 1968.) This section introduces a legal fiction that amount of advance tax paid shall be treated as payment of tax in respect of income of the relevant previous year. It also provides that credit for this advance tax has to be given to the assessee in the regular assessment. These provisions were necessary because the liability

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELGAUM vs. M/S. AKAY COSMETICS PVT. LTD

5 of 16 when the price of M/s Nemaru was taken as the basis for determination of the assessable value, the department had erred in disallowing deduction in respect of freight, insurance, handling charges from the assessable value. In this connection, it was further urged that it was not open to the department to adopt the price of M/s Nemaru

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,NEW DELHI vs. M/S ELI LILLY & COMPANY (INDIA) P.LTD

d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA, or sub-section (1) of section 272BB or sub-section (1A) of section 272BB or sub- section (1) of section 272BBB or clause (b) of sub-section (1) or clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section

M/S DALMIA POWER LTD. vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA

D G M E N T  INDU MALHOTRA, J.   Leave granted. 1.   The issue which arises for consideration in the present Civil Appeals is whether the Department ought to have permitted the   assessee   companies   to   file   the   revised   Income   Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 2016­2017 after the expiry of   the   due   date   prescribed   under   Section   139(5

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY

D G M E N T Hrishikesh Roy, J. 1. Leave granted in SLP(C) No. 32761/2018 for analogous consideration with the related appeals. 2. The question of law to be answered in the present batch of appeals is on interpretation of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act (for short “the Act”) and the same reads as follows: “Whether

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA MILLS

The appeal is dismissed

d) extra-shift allowance double shift and triple shift; (xii) total depreciation; (xiii) investment allowance claimed (also indicate rate); (xiv) remarks (indicate the amount of initial depreciation, investment allowance or development rebate allowed in respect of the assets in an earlier year). (2) Where the depreciation in respect of any asset is not admissible as a deduction under clause

SHITAL FIBERS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

D G M E N T ABHAY S. OKA, J. 1. This group of appeals/petitions has been referred to a Bench of three Judges in view of the Order dated 10th December, 2015 in Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore v. Micro Labs Limited1 which records difference of opinion between two Hon’ble Judges of this Court

SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

5 was issued only on 15-7-2005 by which date the time for payment of tax at source has also expired and as such it was contended that the provisions as contained in Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would be applicable not from A.Y. 2005-06 but from 2006-07. We, however, do not subscribe

SHAH ORIGINALS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 24 MUMBAI

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

5 2012 (3) SCC 593. 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

M/S. SARAF EXPORTS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR - III

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

disallowing the deductions claimed under Section 80-IB of the Act, 1961. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is the subject matter of the present appeal. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4822 OF 2022 Page 3 of 36 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee has heavily relied upon the decision of this Court

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

5 of 6 deductions under Sections 30 to 38 from which it follows that Section 40 is not a stand-alone section. Section 40, before and after FA 1992, has remained the same in the sense that it begins with a non-obstante clause. It starts with the words "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Sections 30 to 38" which

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

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

D. Submissions on behalf of the respondents ........................... 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

M.M. AQUA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI - III

Appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

17. As was affirmed by this Court in Goslino Mario [(2000) 10 SCC 165] a cardinal principle of the tax law is that the law to be applied is that which is in force in the relevant assessment year unless otherwise provided expressly or by necessary implication. (See also Reliance Jute and Industries

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MYSORE vs. M/S. TVS MOTORS COMPANY LTD

disallowed inclusion of PDI charges and free ASS charges in the assessable value by relying on the Custom Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) decision in the case of Maruti Udyog Limited v. CCE, Delhi-III1 and remanded the case to the Adjudicating Authority to re-examine the disputed issues in the light of settled legal positions and finalise

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

5.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of this section shall not apply and shall be deemed never to have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which the provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies.” 6. The time limit

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

17,660 Note: Computation of deduction under section 80HHC 1. Profit of the business - It will be calculated as follows: Income under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" 9,94,680 Less: 90% of export incentives (i.e., 90% of Rs.6,50,000) 90% of brokerage, commission, rent and interest (i.e., 90% of Rs.2,70,000) Profit

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

17 was without jurisdiction, having been issued beyond limitation and the Orders dated 23.07.2018 and 14.03.2019 invoking jurisdiction under Section 241A of the Act for the AY 2017-18 have no sanctity of law since the sine qua non for invoking that Section, i.e. processing of return was completed on 09.04.2019, even on merits, neither the Order dated