SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

Section 40(a)(ia) and Board’s Circular No. 715, dated 08.8.1995, the payment made to the truck owners/operators, exceeding to Rs. 20,000/- without deducting tax at source is disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee firm which works out to Rs. 57,11,625/-, supra. The assessee has shown total payments in Truck Freight

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. 6 vs. M/S I VEN INTERACTIVE LTD

Appeal is Allowed

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

71,716/­.  The said return was filed under E­ Module Scheme and thereafter a hard copy of the same was filed on 05.12.2006.   The return of income was accompanied with balance   sheet   and   profit   and   loss   account.     The   return   was processed   under   Section  143(1)   of   the   Income   Tax   Act,   1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1961 Act’).   That

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

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

disallowed otherwise through a statute. This Court in SC Kothari (supra) had merely laid down the general proposition of law by taking note of the position prevailing in other countries, but in any case, it has got no application over a case of either a penalty or confiscation. 21.2 The law as laid down in Haji Aziz (supra) despite being

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

2. DESCRIPTION OF OTHER RIGHTS AND LIMITATIONS xxx xxx xxx Limitations on Reverse Engineering, Decompilation, and Disassembly - You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, except and only to the extent that such activity is expressly permitted by applicable law nothwithstanding this limitation.” “4. COPYRIGHT- All title and intellectual property rights in and to the SOFTWARE PRODUCT

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

disallowed in the subsequent year, in the case of the then transferee company. The decision of the Delhi High Court, in Spice (supra), after discussing the decision in Saraswati Syndicate, went on to explain why assessing an amalgamating company, without framing the order in the name of the transferee company is fatal: “10. Section 481 of the Companies Act provides

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXGUJARAT III, AHMEDABAD & ANOTHER vs. KURJI JINABHAI KOTECHA

In the result the judgment of the High Court is set

71,632/-. This was after allowing set off of loss brought forward from the year 1955-56 amounting to Rs. 2,11,431/-. In arriving at the figure of the total income, the Income- tax Officer disallowed loss amounting to 28 Rs. 73,348/-in forward contracts in groundnut oil, ground- nuts and groundnut seeds. He disallowed this loss

PRIDE FORAMER S.A. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

71 of the Act. 10. Section 32(2) provides unabsorbed depreciation allowance of a previous year may be carried forward and set off against income of the following assessment years in the manner and subject to the conditions provided therein. The first proviso to the said sub- section further provided such depreciation allowance can be carried forward if the business

CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX vs. M/S SAFARI RETREATS PRIVATE LIMITED

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

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

disallowance of ITC on goods and services used in the construction of buildings could be a logical corollary only if the buildings were intended to be sold as stock by the developer instead of being further used for providing taxable goods or services. There is no contradiction in promoting ITC on goods and services used for the construction of buildings

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

71,384/- is directed to be allowed u/s 43B of the I.T. Act.” 5. This order was upheld in appeal by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [“ITAT”]. The ITAT held: “9. … The Section was introduced to curb the mischief of withholding tax payment by the assessee, while at the same time claiming deduction thereof in the income-tax assessments

THE BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are dismissed

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

71(1)   of   the   present   Act) against its income from interest on securities under   section   8   of   the   1922   Act   (similar   to section   28   of   the   present   Act).   It   was   held that UCO Bank was not entitled to such a set off as the income from interest on securities came   under   section   8   of   the   1922   Act. Therefore,   even

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,MYSORETRAVANCORE-COCHIN AND vs. THE INDO MERCANTILE BANK, LIMITED(and connected appeal)

In the result the appeals fail and are dismissed with costs

disallowing a deduction of the losses in British India and in States other than Travancore State against profits made in Travancore State: Rhondda Urban Council v. Taff Vale Railway (1) and Harrison v. Ward (2). It may be mentioned that in the majority of cases decided in India the proviso to s. 24(1) of the Indian Act has been

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. CALCUTTA KNITWEARS, LUDHIANA

71 which involved the Finance (No. 2) Act 1915 which imposed excess profits duty on trade or businesses commenced after the outbreak of the First World War in 1914. By subjecting the legislation to a strict literal interpretation, Rowlatt J. held that the Finance (No. 2) Act 1915, in isolation, did not apply to businesses that commenced after the outbreak

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

SHARP BUSINESS SYSTEM THR. FINANCE DIRECTOR MR. YOSHIHISA MIZUNO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III N.D

The appeals are hereby disposed of in terms of

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA

2,587.10 lakhs in the shares of the subsidiary company M/S Ceylon Glass Company Ltd., Sri Lanka. At the same time, he found that there were interest bearing borrowings of Rs. 3267.41 crores and interest of 38.22 crores was debited to the profit and loss account. This claim of deduction of the assessee under Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MUSSADILAL RAM BHAROSE

71 or wilful neglect on the part of the assessee firm. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, however, held that by producing what the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner termed to be defective account books, it could not be said that the assessee had shown correct income. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner further noted that the sales and expenses were unverifiable. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner

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

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

disallowed. Civil Appeal Nos 8291 of 2015 & 4451 of 2016 Page 3 of 55 5. The respondent, in its reply to the notice referred to above, clarified that the expenses in question could not have been classified as head office expenditure for the reason that Section 44C of the Act, 1961 presupposes that at least a part of the expenditure

RAMNATH AND CO. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

Section 85-C earlier and Section 80-O later were inserted to the Act of 1961. Noteworthy it is that from time to time, the 53 ambit and sphere of Section 80-O were expanded and even the dealings with foreign Government or foreign enterprise were included in place of “foreign company” as initially provided. The requirement of approval

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

The appeal is allowed

disallowed in computing the total income of such person as a result thereof shall, for the purposes of clause (c) of this sub-section be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. Explanation 2\005\005\005\005. Explanation 3\005\005\005\005. Explanation 4.- For the purposes of clause (iii) of this