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

disallow deductions claimed under section 80P of the IT Act, notwithstanding that mere nomenclature or registration certificates issued under the Kerala Act would show that the assessees are primary agricultural credit societies. These divergent decisions led to a reference order dated 09.07.2018 to a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court. 4 5. The Full Bench of the Kerala High

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 12AA(1) of the IT Act, on 18.05.1979 and is engaged in the activity of promotion of the export of all kind of ready-made garments, knitwear, and garments made of leather, jute and hemp. It does not per se engage in any activity for profit, and its mandate is to ensure that Indian apparel manufacturers, are given forums

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

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. In terms of this scheme, Section 40 (which too starts with a non- obstante clause overriding Sections 30-38), deals with what cannot be deducted in computing income under

COMMNR.,CENTRAL EXCISE, MADRAS vs. M/S. ADISON & CO. LTD

Bench: Us Because Of An Order Dated 16.07.2008, By Which There Was A Reference To A Larger Bench In View Of The Importance Of The Questions Involved. 2. Civil Appeal No. 7906 Of 2002 Arises From The Judgment Dated 23.11.2000 Passed By The Madras High Court In R.C. No. 01 Of 1999. Civil Appeal No. 14689 Of 2015 Was Filed By The Revenue Against The Judgment Dated 26.11.2014 In Central Excise Appeal No. 21 Of 2009. Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 18426 Of 2015, 18423 Of 2015, 18425 Of 2015, 23722 Of 2015, 12282 Of 2016, 16142 Of 2016 & 16141 Of 2016 Are Filed Against The Judgment Of The Andhra Pradesh High Court In Central Excise Appeal Nos. 21 Of 2005, 9 Of 2005, 51 Of 2004, 10 Of 2005, 44 Of 2004, 38 Of 2004 & 18 Of 2005 Respectively. 3. Civil Appeal No. 8488 Of 2009 Is Filed Against The Judgment Dated 20.08.2008 Passed By The Bombay High 2

disallowed only because they are not payable at the time of each invoice or deducted from the invoice price. It is the submission of the Assessee that the turnover discount is known to the dealer even at the time of clearance which has also been upheld by this Court. It is clear from the above that the Assessee is entitled

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

28. On the question as to whether there is any inter-linking of the charging provisions and the machinery provisions under the 1961 Act, we may, at the very outset, point out that in the case of CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty reported in [1981] 128 ITR 294 this Court has held that the charging section and the computation provisions

SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

28 to 41 and in this section, unless the context otherwise requires- *** *** *** (2) “paid” means actually paid or incurred according to the method of accounting upon the basis of which the profits or gains are computed under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession”; *** *** ***” 13.4. For their relevance in relation to another segment of arguments, we may also

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

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

Appeals are dismissed

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

Section 28.   b. The learned counsel appearing for the assessees pointed out that the view taken by the Bombay High Court in 2 (2002) 258 ITR 601 (Bombay) : 2002 SCC OnLine Bom 944      Civil Appeal No.3291­3294 of 2009, etc. Page 6 of 45 the case of American Express International Banking Corporation2 has been approved by the order dated 12th

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

28 to 43, and is not capital in nature, but is laid out or spent exclusively for the purpose of business, under Section 37 of the Act. A similar provision existed under the old Income Tax Act, 1922 as in the case of provision for bad debts, by Section 10(2)11. This aspect was considered 10 [1963] Supp

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(i), Section 29 Section 37(1) and Section

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

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

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

28 of 59 the undisclosed income and (ii) the regular assessment in accordance with the provision of the Act to make assessment qua income other than undisclosed income. Second reason was that the undisclosed income was chargeable to tax at a special rate of 60% under Section 113 whereas income other than undisclosed income was required to be assessed under

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

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

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

disallowance of the deduction under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, end up paying tax of a huge amount, way beyond the commission, resulting in extreme financial hardship. Thus, if section 195 of the Income Tax Act could be construed in a manner so as to avoid such a result, this must be done. Further, he relied

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) 2 vs. M/S MAHAGUN REALTORS (P) LTD

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

28:16 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified 2 executed one residential project under the name “Mahagun Maestro” located in Noida, Uttar Pradesh. MRPL amalgamated with Mahagun India Private Limited (herein after ‘MIPL’) by virtue of an order2 of the High Court (dated 10.09.2007). In terms of the order and provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, the amalgamation was with effect

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