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(2

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

The appeals are allowed in the above

Section 143 or 144. Likewise, even though there is a shortfall in payment of tax according to the calculation made in the order of assessment, the assessee is obliged to pay interest on the seventy five percent of the amount of shortfall only upto the date of the assessment order, i.e., the date on which the amount of advance

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

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

2,587.10 lakhs in the shares of the subsidiary company M/S Ceylon Glass Company Ltd., Sri Lanka. At the same time, he found that there were interest bearing borrowings of Rs. 3267.41 crores and interest of 38.22 crores was debited to the profit and loss account. This claim of deduction of the assessee under Section

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 to the Eleventh Schedule of the IT Act and therefore the assessee shall not be entitled to deduction under Section 80-IB. However, it was the case

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

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

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

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

The appeals are allowed; the impugned orders are

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 for the Assessee about the maintainability

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

2 5,46,000 bottles receivable by them from the assessee and that the remaining bottles stood received after 31.3.1991, i.e., between the period 3.4.1991 and 18.4.1991 and consequently, the AO restricted the depreciation only to 42,000 bottles and consequently dis-allowed the depreciation of Rs. 18,04,572/-. It may be mentioned that in Appeal

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

2 of 6 Both the assessee as well as the Revenue filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ’Tribunal’). The Tribunal by its order dated 20.6.2002 allowed the appeal of the Revenue, and held that the entire amount of Rs. 82 lacs had been advanced by the assessee by utilizing the overdraft account

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

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