COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA MILLS

The appeal is dismissed

x) total number of days worked double shift and triple shift (to be furnished only if extra shift allowance is claimed); (xi) depreciation claimed (a) initial depreciation; (b) normal depreciation (including extra depreciation for approved hotels); (c) additional depreciation; (d) extra-shift allowance double shift and triple shift; (xii) total depreciation; (xiii) investment allowance claimed (also indicate rate); (xiv) remarks

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

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

x) It is submitted that the second proviso to sub- section (1) of Section 153A provides that assessment or reassessment, if any, relating to the six assessment years referred to in the sub-section pending on the date of initiation of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A, as the case may be, shall abate. Thus, where

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

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

disallow a part of 80HHC concession when the entire deduction claimed could not be regarded as relatable to exports. Therefore, while interpreting the words "total turnover" in the above formula in Section 80HHC one has to give a schematic interpretation to that expression. There is one more reason for giving schematic interpretation. The various amendments to Section 80HHC show that

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ALOM EXTRUCTIONS LIMITED

2(24)(x), any sum received by the assessee from his employees ...5/- - 5 - as contributions to provident fund/superannuation fund or any fund set up under Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, or any other fund for welfare of such employees constituted income. This is the reason why every assessee(s) [employer(s)] was entitled to deduction even prior

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

x Rs.28.10 = 3,65,384.30 Sugar (Rate of rebte) Total Rs. 5,40,342.90 The claimant, therefore, according to the Assistant Collector, could not have claimed Rs.6,92,779.59 ps., but only Rs. 5,42.342.90 ps., The Assistant Collector further observed that the claimant had already charged and collected the duty amount from its customers and as such

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

2 (2007) 9 SCR 831 Civil Appeal No. 8912 of 2003 Page 7 of 24 Page 8 JUDGMENT business, but there was profit from the business done within the country and on adjustment of loss from the export business against the profits from the business in India, in the balance sheet, it was still profit resulting into positive income

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

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

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

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

24 income of a person on the basis that it has accrued or arisen or is deemed to have accrued or arisen to him shall not again be so included on the basis that it is received or deemed to be received   by   him   in   India.   The   aforesaid   provision   has   been brought with an intent to check the double taxation

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

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