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

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

23 of 59 assess or reassess the income cannot be assumed merely on the basis of ‘search’ particularly when no incriminating material is unearthed during the course of search. It is submitted that the assessment under section 153A is not the same as regular assessment under section 143(3) as is being contested by the Revenue. It is submitted that

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

disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 80P of the Act is concerned, the CIT(A) rejected the claim for deduction thereby upholding the order of the Assessing Officer. While doing so, the CIT(A) 7 followed the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in the case of the appellant itself in respect of Assessment Years

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

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

disallow expenditure incurred to earn exempt income by applying the provisions of newly inserted section 14A of the Act.” 17. By   Finance   Act,   2002,   a   statutory   provision   was   also inserted by way of proviso to Section 14A.  What was clarified by the Circular have been statutorily engrafted in the proviso to the following effect:­            “Provided that nothing contained in this

M/S.SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDAL LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE &CUSTOMS

disallowing the claim was not proper and accordingly it was set aside. Regarding the claim being barred by limitation, it was observed that since the sugar year was over on September 30, 1976, the claim was required to be submitted within six months. But the claim was submitted on 14th August, 1978, and hence, it was barred by limitation

MANSAROVAR COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI

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

disallowed). Separate penalty proceedings were initiated under sections 271(1)(a). 271(1)(c), 273/274 and 271-B of the Act. 2.12 The assessees then preferred appeals before the CIT(A). Subsequently on 08th December, 2000, the writ petitions filed by the assessees came to be dismissed by the High Court as the respective assessees moved the Appellate Authority prescribed

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

M/S. W. T. SUREN & CO. LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. BOMBAY

23, 1959 to its employees about ceasing of their employment on and from April 30, 1959. According to assessee this letter terminated the services of the employees and the assessee was bound to pay gratuity till that point of time. It, therefore could not be said that there existed no liability to pay any gratuity. It was submitted that

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

The appeal is allowed

x 331 100 Rs.8,00,00,000 Rs.4,79,71,522 3,20,28,478 Less Expenses incurred in relation to sale of property : Solicitor’s fees : Rs.2,50,000 Brokerage : Rs.8,00,000 -------------- LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS Rs. 10,50,000 ------------------- Rs.3,09,78,478 =========== The claim of the assessee for deduction of Rs.22,200/- being expenses incurred

K. vs. . A. L. M. RAMANATHAN CHETTIAR BY L.RS. VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS

In the result the appeals are allowed with costs here and in

2) 18 T. C. 509. 669 income-tax, the rate at which relief is to be given shall be Dominion rate of tax : (b)in any other case the rate at which relief is to be given shall be one-half of the appropriate rate of the United Kingdom income- tax. * * * It will be observed that in this section

A. vs. . THOMAS & CO., LTD., ALLEPPEY VS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,(BANGALORE) KERALA

In the result the appeal must fail and it is dismissed

23, it was authorised "to be interested in, to promote, and to undertake the formation and establishment of other companies", to make investments and to assist any company financially or otherwise. At the material time the assessee company had three directors, whose names are given below 1. A. V. Thomas 2. S. Sankaranarayana lyer and 3. J. Thomas. There

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III, BANGALORE vs. M/S WIPRO LIMITED

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

disallowed if the declaration was filed before the assessment was made. 4.10 Shri Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee has submitted that there are a large number of judgments dealing with other sections of the IT Act which expressly provide that a particular deduction would not be allowed if a particular report or certificate of declaration

SHITAL FIBERS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

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 and gains

JEYAR CONSULTANT & INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,MADRAS

X Export Turnover Total Turnover 11) He also referred to the “Provisions Relating To Direct Taxes” stated in the Finance (No.2) Bill, 1991 presented in the Budget of 1991-1992 and referred to the provisions contained therein which relates to incentives for earning foreign exchange. It makes the following reading: “20. Under the existing provisions of Section 80HHC

NATIONAL PETROLEUM CONSTRUCTION COMPANY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(2) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION NEW DELHI

Appeal is hereby allowed to the extent

Bench: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE

23 is specified that if any Indian company is said to be a resident in   India   in   any   previous   year   or   its   place   for   effective management in that year was in India the income of such is taxable. By the explanation, the place of effective management has been clarified whereby it is clear that if any commercial decision necessary

JT.COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,SURAT vs. SAHELI LEASING & INDUSTRIES LTD

Appeals stand allowed as mentioned hereinabove but with

disallowed out of depreciation. Penalty proceedings under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act were initiated. In response to the show cause notice issued by the Revenue, Assessee filed its reply denying the allegations and contending that no penalty can be imposed on it, when returned income was NIL. 15. Penalty was sought to be imposed in respect

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN vs. M/S ENRON OIL & GAS INDIA LTD

Bench: Cit(A), Who After Analyzing The Psc Held That Each Co-Venturer In This Case Had Made Contribution At A Certain Rate Whereas The Expenditure Incurred Out Of The Said Contribution Stood Converted On The Basis Of The Previous 2

disallowed this loss on the ground that it was a mere book entry and actually no loss stood incurred by the assessee. 6. The decision of the A.O. was challenged in appeal by EOGIL before CIT(A), who after analyzing the PSC held that each co-venturer in this case had made contribution at a certain rate whereas the expenditure

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS vs. K. T. M. T. M. ABDUL KAYOOM

In the result, the appeal is allowed; but

23, 588/- and Rs. 2819/- by sale of chanks gathered by themselves (through divers) after deducting Rs. http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 19 6111/- being the rent paid to Government under the contract referred to above. It sought to deduct Rs. 6111/- from its profits from business on the ground that this was an expenditure

UNISON ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIOINER, CENTRAL EXCISE, NOIDA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Dispatch From Their Factory & Stickers Bearing Uts/Tsn Were Being Affixed & These Sticker Bear The Words “Checked Sl. No. Do Not Remove This Sticker” & That The 2

disallowed the benefit of small scale exemption notification. It was submitted that the words UTS and TSN are not brand names but are the abbreviations of the name of the marketing companies which does not amount to use of the brand name. Stand of the department was as follows: It has not been controverted by the appellants that the excisable