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

SHIV RAJ GUPTA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI IV

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

28(ii)(a) of the Income Tax Act. Nor is it exempt as a capital receipt being non- compete fee, as it is taxable as a capital gain in the hands of the respondent-assessee as part of the full value of sale consideration paid for transfer of shares. This finding would clearly be in the teeth of Section

M/S. SARAF EXPORTS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR - III

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

28(iiib) of the Act, 1961. The assessee was issued a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, 1961. 2.3 By order dated 24.11.2010, the Deputy Commissioner disallowed

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY

disallowance of interest is not warranted, under Section 14A of Income 12 [(2007) 15 SCC 611] / [(2007) 160 TAXMAN 48 (SC)] 13 2017 (393) ITR 476 (P&H) Page 19 of 22 Tax Act for investments made in tax free bonds/ securities which yield tax free dividend and interest to Assessee Banks in those situations where, interest free own funds

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (IT)-I, MUMBAI vs. M/S. AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

28 to 43A, including Section 37. As a result, Section 44C functions as a special provision governing ‘head office expenditure’ for non-residents. Since Section 37(1) is a general provision, it only applies to head office expenditure not explicitly covered under Section 44C. Therefore, once an expense qualifies as ‘head office expenditure’ under the Explanation, it must be processed

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

28 to 38 deal with different kinds of deductions, whereas Sections 40 to 43B spell out special provisions, laying out the mechanism for assessments and expressly prescribing conditions for disallowances

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COIMBATORE vs. M/S. LAKSHMI MACHINE WORKS

28) Capital gains 9,94,680 20,000 Gross total income 10,14,680 Less: Deduction Under section 80HHC [see Note] http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 18 Under section 80-I [i.e., 25% of Rs.9,94,680] Net income (rounded off) 5,48,355 2,48,670 2,17,660 Note: Computation of deduction under section

M/S.L.R.BROTHERS,INDO FLORA LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR vs. COMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

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

28, interest at the rate of 24% under Section 28AB and 8 penalty of Rs.9,98,177/­ under Section 114A of the 1962 Act. The appellant unsuccessfully carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Meerut­ I, wherein the Order­in­Original came to be confirmed by the Order­in­Appeal dated 29.7.2005 by holding thus: “5.  ....... In the light

SHAH ORIGINALS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 24 MUMBAI

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

28(iii- d) would not include the face value of DEPB.” 8. The assessee further contends that the Judgment under appeal has not recorded a finding on whether or not the foreign exchange difference could be chargeable under the head “profits and gains of business and profession”. The judgment under appeal has not referred to sub-section (3) of Section

SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

disallow the deduction towards the payments made and incurred, it would have used the expression “paid”, which term has been specifically defined for the purposes of Sections 28

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA MILLS

The appeal is dismissed

28 which requires that the income from a business has to be computed in accordance with the provisions of sections 29 to 44, and read with section 145, that depreciation is a proper deduction in arriving at the correct income from business. No doubt section 34 provides that the deduction shall be allowed only if the prescribed particulars are furnished

M/S MUNJAL SALES CORPORATION vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,LUDHIANA

28 to 43C essentially deal with Business Income. Sections 30 to 38 deal with Deductions. Sections 40A and 43B deal with Business Disallowances

M/S. ROTORK CONTROLA INDIA (P) LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed in favour of the assessee with no order as to

28 or under Section 37 of the 1961 Act. However, the above principle would not apply after insertion of Section 40A(7) w.e.f. 1.4.73. It may be stated that the principles of commercial accounting, mentioned above, formed the basis of the judgment of this Court in the case of Metal Box Company of India (supra) and those principles are affirmed

BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX

28, deals with profits and gains of business or profession. Sections 30 to 36 relate to certain deductions which are allowed inter alia, on account of rent, rates, taxes, repairs and insurance in respect of premises and buildings used for the purposes of business or profession and includes a) where the premises are occupied by the assessee

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KARNAL vs. M/S CARPET INDIA.PANIPAT(HARYANA)

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL

disallowed by the Assessing Officer and deduction was allowed only to the tune of Rs 1,08,96,505/-. However, the assessee claimed the deduction at par with the direct exporter under Section 80HHC of the IT Act which has been eventually upheld by the High Court. 12) In the instant case, the whole issue revolves around the manner

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

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

28 of the Act, has to be computed in the manner as prescribed under Section 30 to 43D of the Act, which is accordingly provided under Section 29 of the Act. Section 37: “37 General.- (1) Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure

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

Disallowance of claim of depreciation of purchase and lease of cinematographic films held to be bogus Rs. 57,51,520.00 (ii) Reduction of claim of depreciation in respect of leasing vehicles from 40% to 20%. Rs. 10,28,462.00 (iii) Unexplained share application money added back as unexplained cash credits under Section

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

The appeal is allowed

28 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, it is not reasonably certain that it would not apply to penalties under the Income Tax Act, 1961. We would, therefore, recommend as a measure of abundant caution, that an Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 271 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, may be inserted to clarify that where