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

254. According to the appellant, applying “real income theory”, the “Provision for NPA” which is debited to P&L Account in terms of the RBI Directions 1998 and shown accordingly in the Balance Sheet can never be treated as income under Section 2(24) of the IT Act and added back while computing profits and gains of business under Sections

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

disallowance was warranted under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. ITAT following the decision of this Court in SA Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT18, directed the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of the assessee in respect of interest on borrowed fund 18 288 ITR 1 65 since the advances were made for the purposes of commercial expediency. 35.4. Revenue

BASIR AHMED SISODIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal is allowed

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

1)   of section 142,­ (i) if any tax or interest is found due on the basis of such   return,   after   adjustment   of   any   tax deducted at source, any advance tax paid and any   amount   paid   otherwise   by   way   of   tax   or interest,   then,   without   prejudice   to   the provisions of sub­section (2), an intimation shall be sent to the assessee specifying

M/S.VIRTUAL SOFT SYSTEMS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-I

disallowed i.e. Rs. 10,28,462.00, Rs. 57,51,520.00 and Rs. 1,15,000.00. He concluded that by adding these figures the total amount of Rs. 68,94,982.00 was the income in respect of which inaccurate particulars had been furnished. The tax was computed at Rs. 31,71,692.00. It was held that the tax sought

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

NATIONAL CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V, DELHI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL

disallowable on an application of this test. If the advantage consists merely in facilitating the assessee’s trading operations or enabling the management and conduct of the assessee’s business to be carried on more effectively or more profitably while leaving the fixed capital untouched, the expenditure would be on the revenue account, even though the advantage may endure

OIL & NATURAL GAS CORP. LTD. TR. M.D. vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN

The appeals are allowed; the impugned orders are

1 2009 (312) I.T.R. 254 (SC) 2 (1992) Supp (2) SCC 432 3 2004 (267) I.T.R. 647 (SC) 8.At the outset, we may note that although in view of the orders passed by the Committee on disputes, advising the Revenue not to file appeals against Tribunal’s orders, we find some substance in the objection of learned counsel

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

254 (SC) 31 15.3. It therefore emerges that Section 28 is a comprehensive charging provision designed to bring within the tax net all real profits and gains arising in the course of business, whether convertible into money or received in money or in kind, and irrespective of whether such accrual or receipt of income is accompanied by a legal transfer

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

The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs

section 254(2) which reads as under: "BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL: DELHI BENCHES HON’BLE "A" BENCH (HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT R.M. MEHTA & SH. HON’BLE SH. Y.K.KAPOR) IN THE MATTER OF : M/S SHRIRAM HONDA POWER EQUIPMENTS LTD. ITA NOS. : 5413 & 5414/D/96(A) 5544 & 5545/D/96(D) ASSESSMENT YEARS: 1990-91 & 1991-92 SUB: APPLICATION U/S 254

S.A. BUILDERS LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

disallowance of Rs. 18 lacs by the CIT(A) was erroneous and the entire sum of Rs. 82 lacs should have been allowed. http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6 In paragraph 35-41 of its order the Tribunal has considered in detail the question of allowability of the interest amount on the borrowed funds. The Tribunal

MCORP GLOBAL PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD

Accordingly, the civil appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed with no order as to costs

Bench: Coming To The Facts, The Following Is The Relationship Between The Parties: - M/S Glass & Ceramic Decorators Was The Manufacturer Of Soft Drink Bottles. - Assessee Was The ‘Lessor’. - M/S Coolade Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Was The ‘Lessee’. 4. During The Relevant Assessment Year, The Assessee Carried On The Business Of Trading In Lamination Machines & Binding & Punching Machines. In Addition, It Was Also Engaged In The Leasing Business. During The Year In Question, The Assessee Had Bought 5,46,000 Soft Drink Bottles From M/S Glass & Ceramic Decorators Worth Rs. 19,54,953/-. The Bottles Were Directly Supplied To M/S Coolade Beverages Pvt. Ltd. (“M/S Coolade” For Short) In Terms Of Lease Dated 15.2.1991. Vide Assessment Order Dated 28.3.1994, The Ao Found That M/S Coolade Had Received Only 42,000 Bottles Out Of The Total Of 2

disallowed depreciation of Rs. 48,21,694/- in the first round. In other words, the AO allowed depreciation in respect of both the transactions amounting to Rs. 1,32,08,795 as against the claim of Rs. 1,80,30,489/-. Findings: 6. In the case of Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. CIT reported in (1967) 63 ITR 232 this Court

WIPRO FINANCE LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed

254 of the 1961 Act.  The ITAT, in the   first   place,   reversed   the   finding   given   by   CIT(A)   regarding application of Section 43A of the 1961 Act.  The ITAT opined that the said provision had no application to the fact situation of the present case.   Having said that, it then proceeded to consider the question whether   the   loss   suffered

SHIV RAJ GUPTA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI IV

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

disallow it. But it is not the function of the Tribunal to determine the remuneration which in their view should be paid to an employee of the assessee.” [at page 529-530] 18 This Court in CIT v. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co. Ltd. (1976) 2 SCC 5 stated as follows: “6. Before coming to the facts

HERO CYCLES (P) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)

Appeal is allowed, thereby setting aside the order of the

disallowed the aforesaid claim to the extent of Rs.16,39,010/-. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The CIT (Appeals) set aside the order of the Assessing Officer holding that the interest paid by the assessee of which deduction was C.A. No. 514/2008 2 Page 3 JUDGMENT claimed, on the facts

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

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

1 Digitally signed by R Natarajan Date: 2022.11.17 17:01:11 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified That the appellant – assessee is having a manufacturing unit at Pune in which the appellant – assessee is manufacturing ‘polyurethane foam,’ which is ultimately used as automobile seat. The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2003-04 and claimed deduction under