BASIR AHMED SISODIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal is allowed

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

1)   of section 142,­ (i) if any tax or interest is found due on the basis of such   return,   after   adjustment   of   any   tax deducted at source, any advance tax paid and any   amount   paid   otherwise   by   way   of   tax   or interest,   then,   without   prejudice   to   the provisions of sub­section (2), an intimation shall be sent to the assessee specifying

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

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

263. CA No. 6580/2021 Etc. Page 39 of 59 roving/fishing enquiries. 4.2 Learned counsel for the respective assessees have relied upon the following decisions of this Court as well as various High Courts in respect of their submission that no addition can be made in respect of completed assessment in absence of incriminating material: Sl. No. Name of case Citation

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,CHENNAI vs. M/S ALAGENDRAN FINANCE LTD

1. Leave granted. 2. Whether for the purpose of computing the period of limitation envisaged under Sub-section (2) of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), the date of order of assessment or that of the reassessment, is to be taken into consideration is the question involved in this appeal which arises

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

1),   Thiruvananthapuram   finalised   the assessment of income of the appellant under Section 143(3) of the Income­tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) vide Assessment Order dated 14.12.2016.     The   Principal   Commissioner   of   Income   Tax, Thiruvananthapuram has exercised power of revision as contemplated under Section 263 of the Act and set aside order of assessment on the ground that same

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

1 Digitally signed by Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2021.01.12 16:17:51 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified 2. These appeals have been filed by co-operative societies who have been registered as ‘primary agricultural credit societies’, together with one ‘multi-State co-operative society’, and raise important questions as to deductions that can be claimed under section

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

disallowing a deduction of the losses in British India and in States other than Travancore State against profits made in Travancore State: Rhondda Urban Council v. Taff Vale Railway (1) and Harrison v. Ward (2). It may be mentioned that in the majority of cases decided in India the proviso to s. 24(1) of the Indian Act has been

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

263 of the Act 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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(CENTRAL) vs. M/S. GWALIOR RAYON SILK MFG.(WVG.)CO.LTD

The appeal is partly allowed

263. Reassessment by the I.T.O. disallowing the assessee’s claim for depreciation on roads and drains to the extent of Rs. 15,50,526. On appeal the C.I.T. (Appeals) allowed the assessee’s claim for depreciation. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the revenue. At the instance of the revenue on a reference under Section 256(1

THE BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are dismissed

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

263 of the IT Act and interfered with the assessment orders. The CIT held that the appellant was not entitled to the deduction of the      Civil Appeal No.3291­3294 of 2009, etc. Page 4 of 45 interest paid by it for the broken period.  The Commissioner relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of  Vijaya Bank

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 11 (1) BANGALORE vs. M/S ACE MULTI AXES SYSTEMS LTD

Appeals are disposed of in the same terms

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL

263 to the extent it allowed deduction under Section 80 IB(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and directed fresh decision on the said issue vide order dated 16th January, 2009. Thereafter, the Assessing authority on 14th December, 2009 disallowed the claim of Rs.75,81,910/- towards deduction under Section 80 (B(3). The same was upheld

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, U.P. vs. NAINITAL BANK LTD

In the result, the order of the High Court is correct and

disallowed the claim on the ground that it was not a loss incidental to the banking business. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, and on further appeal, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, confirmed that finding. On a reference to the High Court of Judicature at Allababad, a Division Bench of that Court held that the loss

HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD. vs. COMNR OF INCOME TAX

1 of 3 PETITIONER: M/S HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD., BANGALORE Vs. RESPONDENT: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARNATAKA-I, BANGALORE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/05/2000 BENCH: Y.K.Sabhaewal, S.R.Babu JUDGMENT: RAJENDRA BABU, J. : The appellant before us is M/s Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., which is a wholly centrally owned Government Company engaged in the manufacture of aeroplanes and its parts. For the assessment year

SWADESHI POLYTEX LTD. vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

263 the production or manufacture of the finished product. This trade notice categorically stated that the clarification would also be applicable to exemption notification No. 201/79. The appellant claimed set off of duty paid on ethylene glycol used in the manufacture of polyester fibre under notification No. 201/79. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise held on 6.8.1980 that no proforma

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NEW DELHI vs. ANANT RAO B. KAMAT

In the result, we agree with the High Court that answer to

263 ACT: Income-tax-Devidend declared and paid in different years- Rate of which year applicable-Meaning of ’rebate’-Is there any distinction between rebate under Finance Act and the rebate under other statutes-Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), ss. 16(5), 6OA-Part B States (Taxation Concession) Order, 1950. HEADNOTE: The assessee had received