M/S JINDAL EQUIPMENT LEASING CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

disallowed that claim; that view was upheld. This Court stated that : (SCC pp. 679-81, paras 5-6) “5. … In amalgamation two or more companies are fused into one by merger or by taking over by another. Reconstruction or “amalgamation” has no precise legal meaning. The amalgamation is a blending of two or more existing undertakings into one undertaking

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

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

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

209 ITR 63). That judgment dealt with an assessee’s claim for deduction under Section 80HHC. Section 80HHC specifically prohibited the grant of deduction under Section 80HHC unless the stipulated audit report was filed along with the return of income. The assessee filed the required audit report long after the return. The Bombay High Court held that while the filing

HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD. vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,DELHI

The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs

disallowance of Rs. 16,011/- out of sales conference expenses has not been disposed of. In view of the factual position explained above, it is submitted that order may be rectified accordingly. Yours faithfully, For SHRIRAM HONDA POWER EQUIPMENTS LIMITED Sd/- (AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY) Dated: 9.12.2002" 7. In the rectification application, the assessee pointed out the earlier judgment of the coordinate

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

209 Barton J., citing Viscount Haldane in Lumsden v Inland Revenue Commissioners, [1914] AC 877, stated the following: “The duty of Judges in construing Statutes is to adhere to the literal construction unless the context renders it plain that such a construction cannot be put on the words. This rule is especially important in cases of Statutes which impose taxation

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

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

section 30 of the Copyright Act, which transfers an interest in all or any of the rights contained in sections 14(a) and 14(b) of the Copyright Act, but is a “licence” which imposes restrictions or conditions for the use of computer software. Thus, it cannot be said that any of the EULAs that we are concerned with

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS vs. R.M. CHIDAMBARAM PILLAI ETC

209. 117 did not make a firm a corporate body. Moreover., we are not persuaded by that ruling of the Privy Council, particularly since a pronouncement of this Court in Dulichand(1) strikes a contrary note. We quote: "In some systems of law this separate personality of a firm apart from its members has received full and formal recognition

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

MAHARANA MILLS PVT. LTD. vs. INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD & ORS

In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed

disallowed the respondent’s claim on the ground that it was against the principle inherent in granting depreciation allowance which must decrease from year to year. The matter was taken up to this Court and while it was pending there, on May 8, 1956, the Central Government issued a notification in exercise of its powers conferred on it by section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/s. McMILLAN & CO

Section 31 (3) does not in terms say that the power to vary the assessment including the power to enhance it is subject to ally limitation. We have so far dealt with the questions at issue untrammelled by any authorities. We now turn to such authorities as have been placed before us. We take up first the decision

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed; but

disallowed by the Income-tax Officer and on appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. On further appeal to the Appellate Tribunal the respondent firm contended that the 522 decision of the Privy Council in Mohanlal Hargovind v. Commissioner of Income-tax(1)applied to this case inasmuch as the payment was to secure the stockin-trade for its business