M/S GANAPATHY & CO.BANGALORE vs. COMMR.INCOME TAX,BANGALORE

The appeal is dismissed

Disallowance of donation made to Aparna Ashram by the assessee was refused by the Primary and First Appellate Authority on the ground that the necessary certificate showing that the donee (Aparna Page 9 JUDGMENT 9 Ashram) had complied with the conditions subject to which registration was granted to it under Section 35(2A) of the Act was not produced

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

178/- while claiming an amount of Rs 1,65,12,077/- as deduction for lease equalization charges. (c) On scrutiny, the Assessing Officer, after perusal of the return and hearing the parties, vide Assessment Order dated 28.01.2005 disallowed deduction claimed as the lease equalization charges amounting to Rs. 3 1,65,12,077/- and added the same to the income

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

The appeals are allowed in the above

178 I.T.R.529] that the advance tax paid lost its identity the moment it was adjusted towards the tax liability created under the regular assessment and took the shape of payment of tax in pursuance of the order of assessment. Section 214 provides for payment of interest to an assessee on the excess amount of advance tax paid. After adjustment

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

M/S MANGALORE GANESH BEEDI WORKS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MYSORE

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

Sections mentioned above. Feeling aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) who passed an order on 15th October, 1998. The appeal was allowed in part inasmuch as it was held that the Assessee was entitled to a deduction towards legal expenses. However, the claim of the Assessee regarding deduction or depreciation on the Intellectual

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA vs. G.C. JAIN

Appeals are dismissed but without any

Section 47 of the Customs Act cannot be disturbed because of the irreversible situation. Acceptance of advance licences for clearance of BAM as adhesive stands absolute and it cannot be repudiated as licences have been debited by customs authorities. Assessment orders already made cannot be disturbed in the facts and circumstances of the case. These are important factors and areas