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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

274, para 10) “10. … If no such application is filed income tax on such sum is to be deducted and it is the statutory obligation of the person responsible for paying such ‘sum’ to deduct tax thereon before making 12 payment. He has to discharge the obligation [to TDS].” (emphasis supplied) If one reads the observation of the Supreme Court

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

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

Section 10(2) enumerates various items which are admissible as deductions, but it is well settled that they are not exhaustive of all allowances which could be made in ascertaining profits taxable under s. 10(1). In Income Tax Commissioner v. Chitnavis [(1932) LR 59 IA 290, 296, 297] the point for decision was whether a bad debt could

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MUSSADILAL RAM BHAROSE

274(2) of the Act. The assessee went up in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted the facts. It may be noted that subsequent to the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, that is to say on 26th September, 1968, the quantum appeal was heard and partly allowed by the Appellate Tribunal. By its order dated 26th September

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KERALA, ERNAKULAM vs. TRAVANCORE SUGAR & CHEMICALS LTD

274 CITATOR INFO : D 1976 SC 640 (11) F 1985 SC1656 (9) ACT: Indian Income-Tax Act 1922, Section 10(2)(xv)--Payment of fixed percentage of the profits annually, apart from the cash consideration, for taking over of the undertaking, whether deductible. HEADNOTE: The appellant Company was floated with a view to take over the assets of the three

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

The appeal is allowed

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 to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. Explanation 2\005\005\005\005. Explanation 3\005\005\005\005. Explanation 4.- For the purposes of clause (iii) of this

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

SIR SHADI LAL SUGAR AND GENERAL MILLSLTD. & ANR. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

The appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of the

274 read with section 271 of the Act holding inter alia that there was concealment of income to the tune of Rs.1,37,700 and the maximum penalty of Rs.1,06,317 was imposable in law but a sum of Rs.70,000 was imposed as penalty considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The assessee preferred an appeal against

NATIONAL CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V, DELHI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL

disallowable on an application of this test. If the advantage consists merely in facilitating the assessee’s trading operations or enabling the management and conduct of the assessee’s business to be carried on more effectively or more profitably while leaving the fixed capital untouched, the expenditure would be on the revenue account, even though the advantage may endure

MAK DATA P. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II

2 the Assessing Officer (AO) that certain documents comprising of share application forms, bank statements, memorandum of association of companies, affidavits, copies of Income Tax Returns and assessment orders and blank share transfer deeds duly signed had been impounded. These documents had been found in the course of survey proceedings under Section 133A conducted on 16.12.2003 in the case

M/S. DUNCANS INDUSTRIES LTD., CALCUTTA vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE,NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of in

disallowed and why the charges on account of freight, interest on freight, rebate, octroi and interest on receivables should not be included in the assessable value and also why the cost of C.F.C. packing charged and realized by them from the buyers should not be included in the assessable value under Section 4(1) (a) and Section

SWADESHI POLYTEX LTD. vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

disallowing the set off of duty credit paid on ethylene glycol content in methanol and ethylene glycol waste and polyester fibre waste. A third appeal was filed before the Collector (Appeals) against the duty demand of Rs. 15.42,740.16. Thereafter, the appellants received a letter dated 23rd April, 268 1983 from the Superintendent of Central Excise which stated that

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR vs. M/S. RAJASTHAN SPINN.& WEAVING MILLS LTD

2 was an accessory of the diesel generating set, falling under heading 85.02, they also qualify the test of “capital goods” specified against serial No.5 of the Table, and therefore, MODVAT credit in respect of the said items was clearly admissible. It was asserted that chimney was a vital part of the generating set for discharge of gases arising