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

Section 260A of the Act. From a reading of the High Court order dated 15.11.2016, we find that the only issue raised by the revenue before 58 the High Court was relating to disallowance

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

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

260A of the Act against the Penalty order, before the High Court. The High Court while deciding both the cases together, qua the first question, decided in favour of the Revenue and the rental premises of the assessee, the same is to be added to his income as a natural consequence. However, with regard to the second question, the High

THE CITIZEN COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR G.RANGA RAO. HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed reportable

disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 80P of the Act is concerned, the CIT(A) rejected the claim for deduction thereby upholding the order of the Assessing Officer. While doing so, the CIT(A) 7 followed the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in the case of the appellant itself in respect of Assessment Years

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

disallowance of the above two items. An appeal to ITAT met the same fate.   The   ITAT   took   the   view   that   the   advance 4 payment of Excise Duty which represented unutilised MODVAT  credit  without  incurring the liability  of such payment is not an allowable deduction under Section 43B.   The assessee filed an appeal under Section   260A

M/S. MANGALAM PUBLICATIONS, KOTTAYAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM

Bench: This Court & On Leave Being Granted, Civil Appeals Have Been Registered. 3.

260A of the Act, being IT Appeal Nos. 400, 557 and 558 of 2009 for the assessment years 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93 respectively. All the three appeals were allowed by the High Court vide the common order dated 12.10.2009. According to the High Court, the finding of the Tribunal that the assessee had disclosed fully and truly

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,RAJKOT vs. M/S GUJARAT SIDDHI CEMENT LTD

The appeal is disposed of accordingly

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short ‘Cit(A)’). The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer Was Upheld By The Cit(A) On The Ground That No Arguments Were Advanced & No Factual Details Were Furnished Regarding The Alleged Fluctuation On Account Of Foreign Exchange Rate. The Matter Was Carried In Further Appeal By The Assessee Before The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot (In Short ‘Tribunal’) Which Allowed The Claim Placing Reliance On A 2

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’). The question relates to the effect of Section 43A of the Act. The effect of fluctuation of foreign exchange rate resulting in increase of cost of plant and machinery was the dispute. 3. Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the ‘assessee’) claimed increased amount as deduction as investment allowance

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 6 vs. KHYATI REALTORS PVT. LTD

The appeal is allowed, in the above terms, without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

disallowance on account of bad debts and interest. A further appeal was preferred to the ITAT, which allowed the assessee’s plea. The Revenue sought an appeal to the Bombay High Court under Section 260A

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. CALCUTTA KNITWEARS, LUDHIANA

260A of the Act before the High Court. The High Court, by its impugned judgment and order dated 20.07.2010, has rejected the Revenue's appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Tribunal. 14. That is how the Revenue is before us in this appeal. 15. We have heard Shri Rupesh Kumar learned counsel for the Revenue and Shri R.P.Bhatt

M/S.VIRTUAL SOFT SYSTEMS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-I

260A of the Income Tax Act. Assessee also filed ITA No\005. of 2004 being aggrieved against a part of the order of the Tribunal. High Court allowed the ITA No. 340 of 2004 filed by the Revenue and held that the Tribunal was not right in deleting the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. DISTILLERS CO. LTD

The appeal is dismissed with costs

disallowed in terms of Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"). The Assessee paid certain amounts for not affixation of labels on the bottles. He preferred an appeal against the order of assessment and the Appellate Authority, being the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), allowed the same opining that the amount claimed is neither

JT.COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,SURAT vs. SAHELI LEASING & INDUSTRIES LTD

Appeals stand allowed as mentioned hereinabove but with

disallowed out of depreciation. Penalty proceedings under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act were initiated. In response to the show cause notice issued by the Revenue, Assessee filed its reply denying the allegations and contending that no penalty can be imposed on it, when returned income was NIL. 15. Penalty was sought to be imposed in respect

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

IPCA LABORATORY LTD. vs. DY. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

disallowed the deduction of Rs. 3.78 crores. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the Appeal filed by the Appellants on 11th October, 1999. On 29th December, 2000 the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Second Appeal. By the impugned Judgment the Bombay High Court has dismissed the Appeal filed under Section 260A

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

The appeal is allowed

260A of the Act was dismissed in limine, stating : "We are not persuaded by the submission of the learned counsel for the assessee. The revenue authorities as well as the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal have concurrently held that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars. This finding is based on the aspect that the valuation report submitted by the assessee

CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THRISSUR

disallowed. This amount was added back to the taxable income of the assessee, for which a demand notice and challan was accordingly issued. This order of the assessing officer dated 24th January, 2005, was challenged in appeal by the assessee on various grounds. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’], vide its order

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. CORE HEALTH CARE LTD

Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, stood dismissed. 3. On 31.12.92 assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 1992-93 declaring "nil" income. Later on the assessee filed a revised return on 6.8.93 declaring a loss of Rs.1,11,68,543/-. Assessee-company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of intravenous solutions

M/S. I.C.D.S. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

disallowed claims, both of depreciation and higher rate, on the ground that the assessee’s use of these vehicles was only by way of leasing out to others and not as actual user of the vehicles in the business of running them on hire. It had merely financed the purchase of these assets and was neither the owner nor user