.M. SALGAOCAR & BORS. VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly Civil Appeal No. 657 of 1994 is allowed and Civil Appeal Nos

Section 2(24) of the Act and assessable to income of the assessee. The assessee was a HUF. Karta of the HUF was the director of a company and had obtained me benefits in the shape of the use of the company’s assets, viz., motor car, telephone, etc. In the assessment of the company there was a disallowance

SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

24 credited to any account, whether called “Suspense account” or by any other name, in the books of account of the person liable to pay such income, such crediting shall be deemed to be credit of such income to the account of the payee and the provisions of this section shall apply accordingly. Explanation III. – For the purposes of this

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

Appeals are dismissed

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

disallowed it under the income under   the   head   “interest   on   securities”.     The   Appellate Tribunal confirmed the view. This Court, in paragraphs nos. 3 to 7, held thus:  “3. Learned counsel for the Revenue argued that the   income   from   business   and   securities   fell under different heads, namely, Section 10 and Section 8 of the Act respectively, that they were mutually   exclusive

SHAH ORIGINALS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 24 MUMBAI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI

disallowing the deduction under Section 80 HHC, in the facts and circumstances of the case, are valid and tenable. 9. We have perused the citations Mr. V. B. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the assessee, has placed a strong reliance on. The cases relied on by the assessee are clearly distinguishable on the point of deciding the appeal. The ratio

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

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

disallowable under Explanation 1 to Section 37(1). It is submitted that thus either way, neither can the Respondent- Assessee claim business loss due to him not being in the smuggling business nor can he claim business expenditure as the same is prohibited under Explanation 1 to Section 37(1). 3.6 Making above submissions and relying upon the above submissions

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

M/S. SOUTHERN TECHNOLOGIES LTD. vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, COIMBATORE

24) of the IT Act and added back while computing profits and gains of business under Sections 28 to 43D of the IT Act. In reply, the Department contended before us that the IT Act is a separate code by itself; that the taxable total income has to be computed strictly in terms of the provisions

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

24 Page 15 JUDGMENT Officer had disallowed the deduction claim of the assessee under Section 80HHC of the Act on the ground

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

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

disallow a part of the expenditure so incurred. The fact that, in the case of the assessee therein, the business was carried on only in India, albeit the head office was situated in the UK, was not a distinguishing factor as sought to be made out. This is further supported by the Delhi High Court’s decision

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

disallowed. This resulted in great hardship to the ...3/- - 3 - employers. They represented to the Government about their hardship and, consequently, pursuant to the Report of the Kelkar Committee, the Government introduced Finance Act, 2003, by which the second proviso stood deleted with effect from 1st April, 2004, and certain changes were also made in the first proviso by which

KERALA STATE BEVERAGES MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING CORPORATION LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1)

Accordingly, the civil appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

Section 40 (a) (iib) and is not an amount which can be disallowed   under   the   said   provision.   Therefore   the disallowance made in this regard is liable to be set aside.  24

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KOLKATA XII vs. M/S CALCUTTA EXPORT COMPANY

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL

disallowance in the present Assessment Year. 22) In order to remedy this position and to remove hardships which were being caused to the assessees belonging to such second category, amendments have been made in the provisions of Section 40(a) (ia) by the Finance Act, 2010. 23) Section 40(a)(ia), as amended by Finance Act, 2010, with effect from

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA MILLS

The appeal is dismissed

24, the allowance or part of the allowance to which effect has not been given, as the case may be, shall be added to the amount of the allowance for depreciation for the following year and deemed to be part of that allowance for depreciation for the following year and deemed to be part of that allowance, or if there

M/S. I.C.D.S. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

disallowed claims, both of depreciation and higher rate, on the ground that the assessee’s use of these vehicles was only by way of leasing out to others and not as actual user of the vehicles in the business of running them on hire. It had merely financed the purchase of these assets and was neither the owner nor user

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, KERALA vs. M/S. TRAVANCORE SUGARS & CHEMICALS LTD

The appeal stands disposed of in

Bench: The Expiry Of The Relevant Previous Year. On 30.04.1993, The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment For The Year 1990-1991 & Inter Alia Confirmed Disallowance Of The Vend Fee. Against This, The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Who, By His Order Dated 24.05.1993, Deleted The Disallowance Under Section 43B & Allowed The Appeal Of The Respondent-Assessee. Aggrieved By The Said Order, The Revenue Preferred An C. A. No. 2558/ 2005 1

disallowance under S. 43B of the I.T. Act in respect of the vend fee of Rs. 22,87,512/- outstanding as a liability payable to the Government of Kerala as on the last day of the accounting year?” Section 43B of the Income Tax Act allows certain deductions only to be on actual payment. Section 43B reads as follows

THE MAVILAYI SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CALICUT

Bench: Us, The Assessing Officer Denied Their Claims For Deduction, Relying Upon Section 80P(4) Of The It Act, Holding That As Per The Audited Receipt & 2

disallow deductions claimed under section 80P of the IT Act, notwithstanding that mere nomenclature or registration certificates issued under the Kerala Act would show that the assessees are primary agricultural credit societies. These divergent decisions led to a reference order dated 09.07.2018 to a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court. 4 5. The Full Bench of the Kerala High

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

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

disallowed under Section 260 of the Income Tax Assessment Act, 1936(Cth). The Court held that under a literal interpretation Section 36A could apply to Page 18 JUDGMENT 18 allow the taxpayer to claim a loss. Barwick CJ, speaking for the majority relied on the decision in Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Westminster (Duke), [1936] AC 1 which advocated the literal