SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

25 (1) Any person deducting any sum in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this Chapter9, shall pay within the prescribed time, the sum so deducted to the credit of the Central Government or as the Board directs. (2) Any person being an employer, referred to in sub-section (1A) of section 192 shall pay, within the prescribed time

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,WEST BENGAL vs. A. W. FIGGIES & CO., AND OTHERS

section 25(4) of the Act as the partnership firm had been succeeded by a private limited company. There was a provision in the partnership deed of 1939 that on the retirement of any partner the partnership would not be determined but would be carried on by the remaining partners. It appears that a fresh partnership deed was drawn

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

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

25, 1999 dismissed the appeal just stating "The appeal is dismissed". (2) Sections 17(2) and 40A of the Act were amended by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984. Sub-clause (vi)1 of clause (2) of section 17 of the Act, as inserted by the said Amendment Act of 1984, provides that where the employer has advanced any loan

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

CHECKMATE SERVICES P LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Disallowance of unpaid statutory liability - Section 43B *** 35.2 Several cases have come to notice where taxpayers do not discharge their statutory liability such as in respect of excise duty, employer's contribution to provident fund, Employees' State Insurance Scheme, etc., for long periods of time, extending sometimes to several years. For the purpose of their income-tax assessments, they claim

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

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

RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD JAIPUR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (ASSESSMENT)

In the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI

Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 12.02.1992 was issued by the Assessing Officer disallowing 25

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

disallowance under Section 40(a)(iib) is not contingent upon the nature of licence.  The test should be whether levy under the Abkari Act is exclusive or not and in this case it is exclusive.   It is submitted that the restricted interpretation made by the High Court to the   extent   of   FL­1   licences   issued   in   favour   of   the   appellant   runs

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

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

M/S.L.R.BROTHERS,INDO FLORA LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR vs. COMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR

disallow the appeal.” 9 6. The matter was further carried in appeal before CESTAT whereat the impugned order was passed confirming the order of the   authorities   below   whilst   also   holding   that   amendment notification is prospective and cannot be applied to the present case. The relevant extract of the impugned order is reproduced below: “5. We have  carefully  considered the submissions

M/S POLYFLEX (INDIA) PVT. LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

disallowed the deduction under Section 80-IB of the IT Act by observing that the nature of the business of the assessee is “manufacturer of polyurethane foam seats” which falls under entry 25

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

25,86,888.00 including interest under Section 234B of the Act. Consequently, penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated by the assessing officer against the assessee. In the assessment order, assessing officer made several disallowances

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

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

disallowed under the IT Act, the same cannot be added back and, hence, such a provision for NPA cannot be added back in computing the taxable income. According to the appellant, the purpose behind prescribing RBI Directions 1998 is to ensure that members of the public and shareholders of the company obtain a true picture of the financial health

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR vs. MCDOWELL & CO. LTD

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: The High Court Are As Follows: (1) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The I.T.A.T. Was Justified In Holding That The Unpaid Amount Of Bottling Fee Has, On Furnishing Of The Bank Guarantee, To Be Treated As Actual Payment & Accordingly Allowing The Deduction In Respect Of The Same Under Section 43B Of The Act, Even Though The Sum Has Not Been Actually Paid Before The Due Date Of Filing The Return Under Section 139(1) Of The Act. (2) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The I.T.A.T. Was Justified In Allowing The Depreciation On Research & Development Assets Which Related To The Closed Business Of Fast Food Division/Unit Of The Assessee-Company As Such Not Used During The Previous Year? (3) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The I.T.A.T. Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.2,77,887/- 2

25) ITR 265), it was held that the test is whether it is actually used. 6. Learned counsel for the assessee on the other hand submitted that the Saravana’s case (supra) related to a case under Section 31, obviously relatable to current repairs. The assessee’s claim on the other hand is relatable to Section

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

25 1990 Supp SCC 675 26 1935 Ch 567 (CA) 32 being absorbed into another [See: Religare Finvest Ltd. v. State (NCT of Delhi27]. 16.1. Notably, the Companies Act, 2013 contains no express definition of amalgamation. Instead, Sections 230 – 232 prescribe the procedure and spell out the legal effect, namely, the extinguishment of the transferor’s corporate identity