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

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

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(1

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(CENTRAL) vs. M/S. GWALIOR RAYON SILK MFG.(WVG.)CO.LTD

The appeal is partly allowed

disallowed the aforesaid claims, the assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who dismissed the appeals. On further appeal the Tribunal allowed the claims and depreciation on the roads as well as development rebate in regard to the transport viz., tractor, trailer etc. The Revenue filed an application under Section 256(1

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

disallowable under Section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act without reference to tile inter- est that might, in turn, have been paid by the partner to the firm on his borrowings. On appellants-assessees’ appli- cation under Section 256(1

THE MAVILAYI SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CALICUT

Bench: Us, The Assessing Officer Denied Their Claims For Deduction, Relying Upon Section 80P(4) Of The It Act, Holding That As Per The Audited Receipt & 2

disallow deductions claimed under section 80P of the IT Act, notwithstanding that mere nomenclature or registration certificates issued under the Kerala Act would show that the assessees are primary agricultural credit societies. These divergent decisions led to a reference order dated 09.07.2018 to a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court. 4 5. The Full Bench of the Kerala High

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

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

256(1) of the Act. Following three questions were referred to the High Court :- "(1) whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who deleted the addition of Rs. 93, 640 made by the Income-tax Officer under Section

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL

256(1) of the IT Act, the High Court accepted the question of law to be answered as under: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified on facts and in law in holding that amount of Rs.19,35,950/- being grants disbursed by 7 the assessee-applicant to various

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,MYSORETRAVANCORE-COCHIN AND vs. THE INDO MERCANTILE BANK, LIMITED(and connected appeal)

In the result the appeals fail and are dismissed with costs

256 CITATOR INFO : R 1960 SC1175 (9) APL 1962 SC1272 (4) F 1965 SC1358 (18) F 1967 SC 415 (7,8) RF 1972 SC1004 (82) RF 1975 SC1758 (18) R 1979 SC 117 (8) R 1985 SC 582 (32) RF 1989 SC1737 (7) RF 1992 SC 1 (75) ACT: Income Tax-Business Loss-Set off-Profits made in Travancore State

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

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, COIMBATORE vs. M/S. TEXTOOL CO. LTD

The appeal is dismissed with no order

256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (for short, “the Act”) at the instance of the Revenue. The question of law, so referred, was as follows : “...Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in allowing the deduction of Rs.55,84,754/- being the payment made by the assessee company directly

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(1

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KERALA vs. THE KILKOTAGIRI TEA & COFFEE ESTATE CO. LTD

256(1) of the Income Tax Act: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was entitled to Development Allowance at 50% on the sum of Rs.71,500/- being a part of the expenditure incurred during the assessment year 1966/68 on 1967 Tea clearing under the provisions of Section 33A of the Income

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

1. Civil Appeal No. 1569 of 2007 is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.03.2005 of the High Court of Kerala by which in exercise of jurisdiction under 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

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

RAJASTHAN STATE WAREHOUSING CORPN. vs. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed with costs

256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act), in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and the business of the assessee being one and indivisible, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the expenses have