VODAFONE IDEA LTD(EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 26 (2)

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

disallowance of deduction claimed under Sections 10-AA, 80-IA, 80-IAB, 80-IB, 80-IC, 80-ID or Section 80-IE, if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of Section 139; or (vi) addition of income appearing in Form 26- AS or Form 16-A or Form 16 which has not been

CHECKMATE SERVICES P LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

disallowed under Section 43-B which, as stated above, was inserted with effect from 1-4-1984 *** 22. It is important to note once again that, by the Finance Act, 2003, not only is the second proviso deleted but even the first proviso is sought to be amended by bringing about a uniformity in tax, duty, cess

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

26,552.00. Though initially the return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act, subsequently, assessment proceedings were initiated under Section 143 thereof. 10.3. During the assessment year 1999-2000, assessee had acquired the glass division from Nicholas Piramal India Limited for which a non-compete fee of Rs. 18,00,00,000.00 was paid. 10.4. In the assessment

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

disallowed under the IT Act, the same cannot be added back and, hence, such a provision for NPA cannot be added back in computing the taxable income. According to the appellant, the purpose behind prescribing RBI Directions 1998 is to ensure that members of the public and shareholders of the company obtain a true picture of the financial health

DILIP N. SHROFF vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI &ANR

The appeal is allowed

26 explanation is bona fide and that all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his total income have been disclosed by him, then, the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income of such person as a result thereof shall, for the purposes of clause (c) of this sub-section be deemed

CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX vs. M/S SAFARI RETREATS PRIVATE LIMITED

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA

26 of 91 He invited our attention to Section 16(3) of the CGST Act, which bars the claim of depreciation on ‘plant and machinery’ if the assessees choose to avail of ITC. Thus, ITC is allowable only when depreciation is not claimed. He submitted that if the argument of the assessees is accepted, they would be entitled to take

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

The appeals are allowed in the above

26 of 39 basis of the return, the Income Tax Officer, if he was of the opinion that the regular assessment of the assessee was likely to be delayed, could proceed to make a provisional assessment on the basis of the return. Here again, "regular assessment" could have no other meaning than the original order of assessment passed under Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S WOODWARD GOVERNOR INDIA P. LTD

disallowed the deduction/debit. This fact is important. It indicates the double standards adopted by the Department. 11. The dispute in this batch of civil appeals centers around the year(s) in which deduction would be admissible for the increased liability under Section 37(1). 12. We quote hereinbelow Section 28(i), Section 29 Section 37(1) and Section

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 3 vs. ABHISAR BUILDWELL P. LTD

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

26 of 59 a case where there are bona fide reasons to believe that the aforesaid circumstances stated in sections 132 and 132A are present, however, upon undertaking the search, if no incriminating material whatsoever is unearthed, it naturally follows that the very belief that the circumstances exist stands contradicted. In such circumstances, the contention of the Revenue that

ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

disallowance of the deduction under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, end up paying tax of a huge amount, way beyond the commission, resulting in extreme financial hardship. Thus, if section 195 of the Income Tax Act could be construed in a manner so as to avoid such a result, this must be done. Further, he relied

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JAIPUR vs. PRAKASH CHAND LUNIA (D) THR LRS

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

disallowed otherwise through a statute. This Court in SC Kothari (supra) had merely laid down the general proposition of law by taking note of the position prevailing in other countries, but in any case, it has got no application over a case of either a penalty or confiscation. 21.2 The law as laid down in Haji Aziz (supra) despite being

SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

26 to in that sub-section does not deduct the whole or any part of the tax or after deducting fails to pay the tax as required by or under this Act, he or it shall be liable to pay simple interest at twelve per cent per annum on the amount of such tax from the date on which such

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE

The appeal is allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

disallowance of depreciation on 26 assets claimed to be leased. b) Treatment of bonus payments to employees. c) Treatment of share issue expenses. d) Treatment of depreciation on permanent assets and securities. iii. The Commission’s order dated 11.12.2000, makes multiple references to the Report of the Commissioner, as required under Section 245D (1

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III, BANGALORE vs. M/S WIPRO LIMITED

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

26 months after the return was filed as provided under Section 153(1) of the IT Act. The Revenue rejected the form on the ground that it had not been filed along with the return of income and declined to grant additional depreciation as claimed by the assessee. It is submitted that this Court held that the requirement that Form

BASIR AHMED SISODIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal is allowed

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

Disallowed deduction U/s.24(1)  as per discussion  7200/­ 2. Additions in gross profit  10000/­ 3. Additions on the basis of less  Household expenses withdrawals 18000/­ 4. Unexplained credits as per discussions  226000/­  261200/­ Total taxable Income Tax          348700/­ Assessment was made. Necessary forms were issued. Notice be issued separately for imposition of penalty under Section 272(1)(c).” 3. Aggrieved

SHAH ORIGINALS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 24 MUMBAI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI

1) and (3) applies to Section 80 HHC. 4. Mr. Arijit Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing for the Revenue, argued that whether the deduction claimed under Section 80HHC is a profit derived from the export business depends on each case's facts and circumstances. None of the precedents relied upon by the assessee deals with a foreign exchange fluctuation

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S JINDAL STEEL THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

Appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

disallowed by the assessing officer which was affirmed by the first appellate authority i.e., Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). On appeal by the assessee, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which decision has been affirmed by the High Court. The third additional issue relates to what is called carbon credit

KERALA STATE BEVERAGES MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING CORPORATION LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1)

Accordingly, the civil appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

iii)  a company in which more than fifty per cent of the paid­up equity share capital is held by the en­ tity referred to in clause (i) or clause (ii) (whether singly or taken together); (iv)  a company or corporation in which the State Gov­ ernment has the right to appoint the majority of the   directors   or   to   control