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

19 Insofar as the Assessment Year 2017-18 is concerned, the Respondents during the course of arguments, before this Hon’ble Court have admitted that order dated 23.07.2018 was without jurisdiction because on that date, neither the return of income was processed, nor a notice under Section 143(2) issued, warranting exercise of powers under Section 241A

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

COMMNR.,CENTRAL EXCISE, MADRAS vs. M/S. ADISON & CO. LTD

Bench: Us Because Of An Order Dated 16.07.2008, By Which There Was A Reference To A Larger Bench In View Of The Importance Of The Questions Involved. 2. Civil Appeal No. 7906 Of 2002 Arises From The Judgment Dated 23.11.2000 Passed By The Madras High Court In R.C. No. 01 Of 1999. Civil Appeal No. 14689 Of 2015 Was Filed By The Revenue Against The Judgment Dated 26.11.2014 In Central Excise Appeal No. 21 Of 2009. Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 18426 Of 2015, 18423 Of 2015, 18425 Of 2015, 23722 Of 2015, 12282 Of 2016, 16142 Of 2016 & 16141 Of 2016 Are Filed Against The Judgment Of The Andhra Pradesh High Court In Central Excise Appeal Nos. 21 Of 2005, 9 Of 2005, 51 Of 2004, 10 Of 2005, 44 Of 2004, 38 Of 2004 & 18 Of 2005 Respectively. 3. Civil Appeal No. 8488 Of 2009 Is Filed Against The Judgment Dated 20.08.2008 Passed By The Bombay High 2

disallowed only because they are not payable at the time of each invoice or deducted from the invoice price. It is the submission of the Assessee that the turnover discount is known to the dealer even at the time of clearance which has also been upheld by this Court. It is clear from the above that the Assessee is entitled

CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THRISSUR

disallowed. This amount was added back to the taxable income of the assessee, for which a demand notice and challan was accordingly issued. This order of the assessing officer dated 24th January, 2005, was challenged in appeal by the assessee on various grounds. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’], vide its order

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

19. Shri C.S. Agarwal, learned senior counsel, Shri Kannan Kapoor, and Shri Salil Kapoor, learned counsel appearing for various other assessees 22 have adopted the arguments mentioned hereinabove. III. Relevant Provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961: Section 2 - Definitions. “2.(37A) “Rate or rates in force” or “rates in force”, in relation to an assessment year or financial year

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

disallowances. In terms of this scheme, Section 40 (which too starts with a non- obstante clause overriding Sections 30-38), deals with what cannot be deducted in computing income under the head “Profits and Gains of Business and Profession”. Likewise, Section 40A(2) opens with a non-obstante clause and spells out what expenses and payments are not deductible

SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

disallowance to 30% of the expenditure and has submitted that the said amendment, being curative in nature and having been introduced to ameliorate the hardships faced by the assessees, deserves to be applied retrospectively and from the date of introduction of sub-clause (ia) to Section 40(a) of the Act. The learned counsel has developed this argument by relying

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

2% commission, would, however, after the disallowance of the deduction under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, end up paying tax of a huge amount, way beyond the commission, resulting in extreme financial hardship. Thus, if section 195 of the Income Tax Act could be construed in a manner so as to avoid such a result, this

THE CITIZEN COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR G.RANGA RAO. HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed reportable

Section 143(2) of the Act was issued. In response thereto, books of account were produced by the assessee society and information called for was submitted. The Assessing Officer had arrived at Rs.19,57,32,920/- as the net amount of tax payable by the assessee in terms of his order dated December 19, 2011 by working out as hereunder

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

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

19 of 59 153A(1)(b) signifies not the pending assessment or reassessment, but the assessment to be made under section 153A for six assessment years. It is submitted that again the Parliament has been extremely careful in not employing the expression ‘total income’ in the second proviso which expression has been carefully employed under section 153A

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA MILLS

The appeal is dismissed

disallow the claim if the assessee had not furnished the particulars. On the other question where the assessee in the revised return had withdrawn his claim of depreciation the Court said that where the assessee had furnished the particulars regarding the claim of depreciation in the original return the assessee would not be able to withdraw his claim for depreciation

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

disallowed by Explanation to Section 36(1)(vii), if claimed, has got to be added back to the total income of the assessee because the said Act seeks to tax the “real income” which is income computed according to ordinary commercial principles but subject to the provisions of the IT Act. Under Section 36(1)(vii) read with the Explanation

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX 4 BENGALURU 2 vs. M/S JUPITER CAPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED

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

disallowance of capital loss claimed by the assessee of Rs.164,48,55,840/- by holding that there is extinguishment of rights of 153340900 shares when no such extinguishment of rights is made out by Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND Date: 2025.01.08 11:04:03 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified 2 the assessee as required under section 2

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JAIPUR vs. PRAKASH CHAND LUNIA (D) THR LRS

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

2 SCC 759 as well as Apex Laboratories (P) Ltd. v. CIT, (2022) 7 SCC 98. It is submitted that Explanation 1 to Section 37(1) of the Act expressly disallows any expenditure incurred by an assessee for any purpose which is an offence or is prohibited by law, which may be claimed as an expenditure incurred for the purpose

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

2) Where an order under this section provides for the transfer of any property or liabilities, then, by virtue of the order, that property shall be transferred to and vest in, and those liabilities shall be transferred to and become the liabilities of, the transferee company; and in the case of any property, if the order so directs, freed from

M/S. I.C.D.S. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

disallowed claims, both of depreciation and higher rate, on the ground that the assessee’s use of these vehicles was only by way of leasing out to others and not as actual user of the vehicles in the business of running them on hire. It had merely financed the purchase of these assets and was neither the owner nor user

UDAIPUR SAHKARI UPBOKTA THOK BHANDER LD. vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX

disallowed the claim on the ground that the appellant-society is a wholesaler of foodgrains and it is not a mere stockist as claimed and consequently it was not entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(e) of the 1961 Act. This order was applied for assessment years in question. Aggrieved by the assessment order(s), appellant filed appeals before

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