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(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

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

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

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

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

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

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(1

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

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S TRANVANCORE TITANIUM PRODUCTS LTD

256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as applied to surtax by Section 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 the questions that arose for consideration of the High Court were: "(a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the loan redemption reserve amount

C0MMNR. OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI vs. ORIENTAL FIRE & GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD

Bench: The Controller Of Insurance.

1. Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions. 2. Respondent is a subsidiary to the General Insurance Corporation of India. It is wholly a government owned company engaged in the business of general insurance. It is an income-tax asessee. Its affairs, indisputably, are governed by the provisions of the Insurance Act, 1938 (for short

M/S GANAPATHY & CO.BANGALORE vs. COMMR.INCOME TAX,BANGALORE

The appeal is dismissed

1. The High Court of Karnataka by the impugned order dated 3rd July, 2007 had answered the questions referred to it for its opinion under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (as it then existed) against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal upon grant of leave under Article

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

In the result, the civil appeals are allowed

1 of 3 CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 4475-4476 of 1998 PETITIONER: K. RAVINDRANATHAN NAIR RESPONDENT: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ERNAKULAM DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30/11/2000 BENCH: S.P. BHARUCHA & DORAISWAMY RAJU & RUMA PAL JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT 2000 Supp(5) SCR 244 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHARUCHA, J. We are concerned in these appeals from a decision

RAMNATH AND CO. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

Section 85-C earlier and Section 80-O later were inserted to the Act of 1961. Noteworthy it is that from time to time, the 53 ambit and sphere of Section 80-O were expanded and even the dealings with foreign Government or foreign enterprise were included in place of “foreign company” as initially provided. The requirement of approval