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

MODI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MODINAGAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI

The appeals are allowed in the above

220 to 232), which lays down the procedure for realisation of tax after an assessment order has been passed, nor in Part-B - Deduction at Source (Sections 192 to 206). The phrase ‘regular assessment’ has been used extensively in a number of sections in Part-C - Advance Payment of Tax (Sections 207 to 219). The reason for this is obvious

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS PVT.LTD

The appeal is allowed without

disallowing deductions, allowance or relief. 13. One thing further to be noticed is that intimation under section 143(1)(a) is given without prejudice to the provisions of section 143(2). Though technically the intimation issued was deemed to be a demand notice issued under section 156, that did not per se preclude the right of the Assessing Officer

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KERALA, ERNAKULAM vs. TRAVANCORE SUGAR & CHEMICALS LTD

section 2 of Sec. 10 is confined tothe payments wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of businessin which expenditure of a revenue nature would also be included along with the expenditure of various other categories. The contention that the said clause covers expenditure of both the capital and revenue nature and also payments wholly and exclusively laid

ASSAM BENGAL CEMENT CO. LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,WEST BENGAL

disallowed as being expenditure of a capital nature and so not allowable under section 10(2) (xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act ". The High Court answered the question in the affirmative and hence this appeal. Clauses 4 and 5 of the deed of lease may be here set out :- 4. The lessee shall pay to the lessor

EMPIRE JUTE CO. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Section 10(2) (xv) of the Act. HEADNOTE: Right from 1939, the demand of jute in the world market was rather lean and with a view to adjusting the production of the jute mills to the demand of the world market, various jute mills formed an Association styled as Indian Jute Mills Association and the appellant is one such member

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

The appeal is allowed

220-Walkeshwar Road, Mumbai-400 006 1 Land Area as per records 5250 sq. yds. = 4389.63 sq. mt. 2 Land rate adopted @ Rs.12842/- sq. mt. (897/- x 1.33 x 10.764) 3 Consideration of land component Rs.5,63,71,628 (A) 4 Built-up Area existing as on 1-4.81 (Gr.+I upper floor bungalow structures

MOHAN WAHI vs. COMMNR. INCOME TAX, VARANASI

The appeal stands allowed in

disallowed, the Tax Recovery Officer shall make an order confirming the sale and thereupon the sale shall become absolute. On a sale or immovable property becoming absolute, a sale certificate shall be issued under Rule 65. Under Section 224, an assessee cannot dispute the correctness of any certificate drawn up by the Tax Recovery Officer but it is lawful

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

disallowing exemptions wrongly claimed. Thereafter, the recovery can be made by an order of the competent officer as per Second Schedule of the IT Act read with Sections 222 and 276 alongwith Sections 220 & 221 with interest and penalty. Thus,  in  my   considered   view  the   issuance   of   the  certificate under Section 197(1) is based on the existing and estimated

BROOKE BOND INDIA LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,WEST BENGAL-III, CALCUTTA

Section 261 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), the following question referred to the Calcutta High Court by the Income Tax Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) was answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right