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

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

disallowance under Section 36(l)(iii) which provision provides for deduction to be allowed in respect of the amount of interest on capital borrowed for the purposes of the business or profession. In Civil Appeal Nos. 4012-13 of 1998 it is the revenue which is aggrieved. For the Assessment Years 1980-81 and 1981-82 in the case

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MUSSADILAL RAM BHAROSE

256(2) 73 of the Act seeking a reference on the question mentioned hereinbefore. The High Court by the judgment under appeal after referring to the facts mentioned hereinbefore was of the view that no question of law arose in this case. The High Court opined in the impugned judgment that the finding of the Tribunal that the assessee acted

M/S.PREMIER BREVERIES LTD.KARNATAKA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN

Section Page 2 JUDGMENT Page 2 of 18 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (as it then existed) (hereinafter for short ‘the Act’) the questions reframed by the High Court have been answered against the appellant- assessee and in favour of the revenue. The question decided by the High Court and relevant to the present appeal relates

PRAKASH COTTON MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL)

In the result, we allow that appeal partly and remit the

disallowance of claims of the appellant by the I.T.O., did not succeed. Application made by the assessee under Section 256

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY. vs. M/S. INDIAN ENGG. & COM.CORP. P. LTD

Accordingly fail and are dismissed

disallowed the same applying section 40 (a) (v) for the year 1971-72 and section 40 (A) (5) for the assessment year 1972- 73. Which are the concerned assessment years herein. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that commission on sales cannot betreated as perquisites. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue’s appeal. The question before this court was whether

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. STEPWELL INDUSTRIES LTD

The appeal is allowed to the above extent

256(2). It appears that the Tribunal did not examine the claim of the assessee by reference to any of the sub-clauses of Section 35B(1) (b). No expenditure can be allowed under Section 35B generally. The assessee must be able to establish the facts to prove that the expenditure falls within the ambit of sub-clause

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. DELHI SAFE DEPOSIT CO. LTD

The appeal is dismissed with

section 256(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ’the Act’). The facts of the case are these : The assessee (the respondent herein) is a public limited company. The assessee was a partner of a firm of managing agents known as M/s. Morari Lal Batra & Co. 3 (hereinafter referred to as ’the managing agency firm

M/S. KERALA ROAD LINES vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN

The appeal is dismissed accordingly

Section 256(1) for rendering justice? The questions referred to the High Court in ITR No.310 of 1999 at the instance of th e assessee were answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee relying upon its ow n earlier decision dated 31.10.2001 passed in ITR Nos.61/1997, 275/1999 and O.P.No.20583 of 1996. It is brought

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

Section 256(1) of the Act, which referred two questions of law to the High Court. In the present appeal, we are concerned with Question No. 2 which reads as follows: - “2. “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in upholding the deletion of disallowance

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS MARUTI UDYOG LTD.) vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN

disallowing the claim of the   assessee.   On   appeal   to   the Tribunal,   the   Tribunal   held   that   the Gujarat   high   court’s   judgment   in Lakhanpal   National   Ltd.’s   case   [1986] 162   ITR   240   was   distinguishable   and confirmed the order of the Commissioner of  Income­tax.  On an  application  made under section 256

M/S. WATERFALL ESTATES LTD.MADRAS vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TAMIL NADU I, MADRAS

256(1). The issue arising from questions No. 1 and 2 in short depends upon the answer to the question whether the various activities being carried on by the appellant-assessee constitute one single integrate activity or do they represent distinct business. The question of this nature, it is evident, is essential a question of fact. The statement

LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,BOMBAY vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY

The appeal is allowed

Disallowance of the balance of the tax refund was quite in order because they did not come out of the assets which were included in the surplus of the earlier inter valuation period." The above-quoted question was referred to the High- Court for its decision at the instance of the assessee Corporation, under Section 256

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HYD. vs. M/S. P.J. CHEMICALS LTD

In the result, we affirm the judgments of the High Courts which have

256 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In some of the cases, there are some delays in filing them. We condone the delays. In the special leave petitions, we grant special leave. These are cases in which the High Courts have held that subsidies granted to industries on a percentage of the capital cost are not deductible from the "actual

ALEMBIC CHEMICAL WORKS CO. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUJARAT

In the result, for the foregoing reasons the appeal

Disallowing the claim the Income Tax Officer held that the expenditure was for the acquisition of an asset or advantage of an enduring benefit and thus a capital outlay. The Appel- late Assistant Commissioner confirmed the order of the Income Tax Officer. The further appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal holding that the payment

M/S BRIJ MOHAN DAS LAXMAN DAS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, AMRITSAR

disallowed by the Income Tax Officer and that the Tribunal http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5 was not right in allowing the assessee’s appeal. The High Court has, however, certified the case under Section 261. It may be mentioned that Explanations 1,2 and 3 to the above clause were added by the Taxation Laws

SMITH KLINE & FRENCH [INDIA] LTD.ETC. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act for the consideration of the Kerala High Court: (1) "Whether Rs. 76,777/- being the surtax liability is to be allowed as a deduction in computing the total income of the assessee for the assessment year 1976-77?" The claim for the said deduction was disallowed

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

256(2) of the Act seeking reference to it. Order dated 03.02.1994 was passed by the High Court directing ITAT to frame the reference and place the same before the High Court. On this direction of the High Court, the ITAT Civil Appeal No. 8912 of 2003 Page 5 of 24 Page 6 JUDGMENT referred the following question

SHRI K. RAVINDRANATHAN NAIR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the civil appeals are allowed

disallowed its application insofar as it related to five questions on the basis that the one issue, that was covered by the question quoted above, had been split up into six questions. The Revenue did not file an application before the High Court under Section 256