BASIR AHMED SISODIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal is allowed

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

4 admitted on 27.4.2006 on the following substantial question of law: ­ ‘‘Whether claim to purchase of goods by the assessee could be dealt with under Section 68 of the Income Tax as a cash credit, by placing burden upon the assessee to explain that the purchase price does not represent his income from the disclosed sources?’’ The principal argument

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

SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 19611, for failure of the assessee- appellant to deduct the requisite tax at source2. 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’ or simply ‘the Act’. 2 ‘Tax deducted at source’ being referred as ‘TDS’ 1 Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2025.08.26 12:57:09 IST Reason: Signature

DEVI CINE PROJECTOR MANUFACTURINGCO., ETC. ETC. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

250 1990 SCALE (1)217 ACT: Income Tax Act, 1961: Section 40(b)--Disallowance of interest---Firm paying interest to partner--Partner also paying interest to firm on borrowing from firm--Whether such interest to be confined only to net amount after setting off interest paid by partner. Constitution of India, 1950: Article 136---Special Leave Petitions filed against High

VODAFONE IDEA LTD(EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 26 (2)

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

250/-. … … … 21. Counsel for the Revenue contended that for the relevant period under consideration, the Assessing Officer has already issued notice under sub-section (2) of Section 143 within time. As per the then prevailing provision, it was thereafter not necessary CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2377 OF 2020 (@ SLP (C) NO.1169 OF 2019) VODAFONE IDEA LTD (EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE MOBILE

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 6 vs. KHYATI REALTORS PVT. LTD

The appeal is allowed, in the above terms, without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

4 (2010) 13 SCC 532. 5 1963 (2) SCR 976. 6 2012 (348) ITR 109 (Del). 7 349 ITR 250 (Bom). 8 1990 (186) ITR 412 (Bom). 6 (vii) subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), the amount of any bad debt or part thereof which is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee

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

Appeals are dismissed

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

250, also   support   our   view   in   the   present   case. In UCO Bank's case, the assessee Bank claimed a set off under section 24(2) of the Income­tax Act,   1922   (section   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

RENUKA DATLA vs. COMNR. OF INCOME TAX KARNATAKA

250/- shown in the return. ii) Unexplained investment in acquisition of jewellery Rs.23,07,809/- iii) Value of stones other than diamonds studded in jewellery Rs.1,09,419/- iv) Unexplained cash found from locker : Rs.2,50,000/- v) Interest on debentures not shown in return Rs.3,690/- vi) Unexplained amount received from Bombay: Rs.45,000/- vii) Unexplained investment in acquisition

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. M/S. GENERAL INSURANCE CORPN.OF INDIA

Disallowance of Rs. 1,04,28,500/- in respect of stamp duty and registration fees incurred in connection with the increase in the authorized share capital were bifurcated by the CIT (Appeals) into two categories, one relating to the increase in authorized share capital from Rs. 75 crores to Rs. 250 crores and second relating to issue of bonus shares

EASTERN INVESTMENTS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,WEST BENGAL

250 lacs and consisted partly of preference shares and partly of ordinary shares. Of these Lord Cable held the majority including the 50,000 ordinary shares of the face value of Rs. 50,00,000 with which we are here concerned. The rest of the share capital was held by the nominees of the late Lord Cable. Lord Cable died

M/S MERIDIAN INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. COMMR.OF CENTRAL EXCISE

4. However, the Central Board of Excise & Customs, reviewed the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise in Order-in-Original No.32/2002-Commr. dated 21.06.2002 and directed the Commissioner to present an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal exercising power under Section 35B of the Act. The Commissioner of Central Excise preferred the appeal as directed by the Central Board of Excise

ASSOCIATED BANKING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY-1

4 of 12 and that the Secretary had misused powers entrusted to him under the power of attorney (a copy of which was annexed to the report) after posting fictitious entries in the books of account, but the defalcations of Rs. 18,00,000 and Rs. 98,892 by the Secretary became known to the liquidator only after the year