A.M. MOOSA vs. COMMNR OF INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows. For the assessment year 1992-93, the assessee appellant had claimed deduction under Section 80-HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (in short, ’the Act’). The assessing officer disallowed

VODAFONE IDEA LTD(EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 26 (2)

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

disallowed and why interest should not be taxed as receipt on the revenue account. It is contended by the assessee that the Assessing Officer was in the midst of the proceedings under Section 143(3

IPCA LABORATORY LTD. vs. DY. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

disallowed the deduction of Rs. 3.78 crores. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the Appeal filed by the Appellants on 11th October, 1999. On 29th December, 2000 the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Second Appeal. By the impugned Judgment the Bombay High Court has dismissed the Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. The question for consideration

SHAH ORIGINALS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 24 MUMBAI

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

disallowance of gain earned from foreign exchange fluctuations by the assessee without recording findings on crucial matters in issue. 3.1 It is argued that sub-section (1) of Section 80 HHC allows the deduction of profits of business derived from exports of goods/merchandise outside India. Sub-section (1) of Section 80 HHC is appreciated by also applying sub-section (3

BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX

disallowed under Section 37(3) of the Act, inasmuch as the same had been allowed under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act. Dr. Pal also

BASIR AHMED SISODIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal is allowed

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

Section 68 and added in declared income of assessee.  Accordingly, the computation of income of assessee for assessment year 1998­99 is as follows: 3 Income shown in the Returns 87500/­ 1. Disallowed

CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX vs. M/S SAFARI RETREATS PRIVATE LIMITED

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

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

3) applies to plant or machinery, the effect of the provision is that if the registered person claims depreciation on Civil Appeal No.2948 of 2023 etc. Page 30 of 91 the tax component of the cost of capital goods and plant and machinery under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, he cannot avail

M/S. MANGALAM PUBLICATIONS, KOTTAYAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM

Bench: This Court & On Leave Being Granted, Civil Appeals Have Been Registered. 3.

Section 143 (3) of the Act after making additions and providing for certain disallowances. He submits that for the assessment

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY

3 of 22 The new section was inserted in aftermath of judgment of this Court in the case of Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation Vs. CIT1. The said Section provided for disallowance

UDAIPUR SAHKARI UPBOKTA THOK BHANDER LD. vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX

disallowed the claim on the ground that the appellant-society is a wholesaler of foodgrains and it is not a mere stockist as claimed and consequently it was not entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(e) of the 1961 Act. This order was applied for assessment years in question. Aggrieved by the assessment order(s), appellant filed appeals before

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

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

3) (2) Bangalore (2022 (8) TMI 966 (Karnataka) 10. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 Vs. Jay Infrastructure and Properties Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (10) TMI 1022 (Gujarat) 11. Smt. Jami Nirmala Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (2021) 437 ITR 573 (Orissa) 12. Smt. Smrutisudha Nayak Vs. Union of India (2021) 439 ITR 193 (Orissa) 13. Commissioner of Income

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

SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is confined/limited to the amount “payable” and not to the amount “already paid”; and whether the decision of this Court in Palam Gas Service v. Commissioner of Income-Tax: (2017) 394 ITR 300 requires reconsideration? 3

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

disallowed by the Act [SEE: page 455 of "The Law and Practice of Income Tax" by Kanga and Palkhivala]. Therefore, schematic interpretation for making the formula in Section 80HHC workable cannot be ruled out. Similarly, purposeful interpretation of Section 80HHC which has undergone so many changes cannot be ruled out, particularly, when those legislative changes indicate that the legislature intended

MANSAROVAR COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI

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

disallowed). Separate penalty proceedings were initiated under sections 271(1)(a). 271(1)(c), 273/274 and 271-B of the Act. 2.12 The assessees then preferred appeals before the CIT(A). Subsequently on 08th December, 2000, the writ petitions filed by the assessees came to be dismissed by the High Court as the respective assessees moved the Appellate Authority prescribed

M/S. VIKRAM CEMENT vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE

disallow the credit on aforestated items on the ground that they were used for extraction of limestone in the mines and not within the factory in which cement (final product) was manufactured by the assessee. The assessee replied to each of the above three show-cause notices by which it submitted that the substantive definition of "input" as per clause

M/S. PUROLATOR INDIA LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-III

Appeal is disposed of accordingly

3) For the purpose of this Section,- (a) “assessee” means the person who is liable to pay the duty of excise under this Act and includes his agent; (b) persons shall be deemed to be “related” if- (i) they are inter-connected undertakings; (ii) they are relatives; (iii) amongst them the buyer is a relative and a distributor

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

disallowed under Section 40(a)(iib) of the Act. Against   order   of   the   Principal   Commissioner,   Income   Tax,   dated 2 C.A.@S.L.P.(C)No.12859 of 2020 etc. 25.09.2018, the appellant herein filed appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short, ‘the Tribunal’) in ITA No.536/Coch/2018. 4. With   respect   to   Assessment   Year   2015­2016   assessment against the appellant was completed under Section