HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD. vs. COMNR OF INCOME TAX

disallowing certain deductions claimed by the appellant on various grounds. Against the assessment order of the ITO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who by an order made on October 27, 1976 partly allowed the same. By the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, both the Revenue and the assessee preferred second appeals before the Income

BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX

Section 37(4) of the Act were disallowed. Other similar decisions of the Madras and the Rajasthan High Courts were also referred to. Mr. Dutta lastly referred to another decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Biswanath Tea Co. Ltd. (2003) 264

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

The appeals are allowed in the above

Section 143 or 144. Likewise, even though there is a shortfall in payment of tax according to the calculation made in the order of assessment, the assessee is obliged to pay interest on the seventy five percent of the amount of shortfall only upto the date of the assessment order, i.e., the date on which the amount of advance

M/S MEPCO INDUSTRIES LTD.MADURAI vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are allowed with no order as to

264 of the Act on 30th April, 1997, had taken the view that the subsidy in question was a capital receipt not taxable under the Act. After the ...6/- - 6 - judgement of this Court in Sahney Steel and Press Works Limited (supra), the Commissioner of Income Tax has taken the view that the subsidy in question was a revenue receipt

RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD JAIPUR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (ASSESSMENT)

In the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI

disallowing 25% of the 3 depreciation, restricting the depreciation to 75%. Additional tax under Section 143(1-A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.8,63,64,827/- was demanded. The assessee filed an application under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 18.02.1992 praying for rectification of the demand. The assessee also filed a petition

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS PVT.LTD

The appeal is allowed without

disallowing deductions, allowance or relief. 13. One thing further to be noticed is that intimation under section 143(1)(a) is given without prejudice to the provisions of section 143(2). Though technically the intimation issued was deemed to be a demand notice issued under section 156, that did not per se preclude the right of the Assessing Officer

MOHAN WAHI vs. COMMNR. INCOME TAX, VARANASI

The appeal stands allowed in

264 of the Act. Vide order dated 21.5.1999, the CIT dismissed the petition forming an opinion that whatever happened after the auction sale held on 11.1.1980 was immaterial and the Tax Recovery Officer had no other option except to confirm the sale. S, the petitioner before us then filed the present writ petition laying challenge to the order

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

section 30 of the Copyright Act, which transfers an interest in all or any of the rights contained in sections 14(a) and 14(b) of the Copyright Act, but is a “licence” which imposes restrictions or conditions for the use of computer software. Thus, it cannot be said that any of the EULAs that we are concerned with

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

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

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

264 allowed or additional income-tax charged’. If these words are ignored, it will be rewriting s. 16(2). Section 16(2) applies the rate of the year in which the dividend is paid, etc., and not of the year when the profits were made by the company. On the fact of this case it was held that the rates

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, KERALA vs. M/S. TARA AGENCIES

Appeal is allowed and the

disallowed the claim of the respondent assessee. 5. The respondent assessee aggrieved by the said http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 16 order preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The appeal filed by the respondent assessee was allowed on the ground that the respondent assessee was a small scale industrial unit

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

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,NEW DELHI vs. M/S ELI LILLY & COMPANY (INDIA) P.LTD

disallowed for such non- deduction of tax at source. 30. The above examples show that the 1961 Act is an integrated code in which one cannot segregate the computation machinery from the collection and recovery machinery. (ii) On the Scope of Section 192(1): 38 31. On behalf of the tax-deductor-assessee the basic contention before us was that

SWADESHI POLYTEX LTD. vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

264 Allowing the appeals, this Court, HELD: (1) On an analysis and comparison of the notifi- cations No. 201/79, No. 102/81 and the circulars, it is clear that the clarification in the form of trade notice issued in respect of rule 56-A was as much applicable to that rule as to notification No. 201/79. [272D] (2) It is true

M/S MERIDIAN INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. COMMR.OF CENTRAL EXCISE

Section 35B of the Act. The Commissioner of Central Excise preferred the appeal as directed by the Central Board of Excise & Customs against his own Order-in-Original No.32/2002-Commr. dated 21.06.2002 before the Tribunal. 5. The Tribunal allowed the appeal preferred by the Commissioner of Central Excise vide its decision dated 17.07.2007. Perusal of the decision indicates following thought process