JEYAR CONSULTANT & INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,MADRAS

disallowed the deduction. This order of the Assessing Officer was unsuccessfully challenged by the appellant as all the authorities upto the High Court upheld that order. This Court also, in the aforesaid judgment, concurred with the view taken by the courts below. Before this Court, specific reliance was placed on sub-section (3) of Section 80HHC and on that basis

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

3) of section 200.” Penalty for Failure to Deduct Tax at Source: “Section 271C: (1) If any person fails to – (a) Deduct the whole or any part of the tax as required by or under the provisions of Chapter XVII-B; or (b) Pay the whole or any part of the tax as required by or under, - (i) Sub-section

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

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 the head “Profits and Gains of Business and Profession”. Likewise, Section 40A(2) opens with a non-obstante clause and spells out what expenses and payments are not deductible

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

1 SCC 12 34 (2004) 10 SCC 201 Civil Appeal No.2948 of 2023 etc. Page 29 of 91 f. The learned ASG also dealt with the services on tax and work contracts in the pre-GST regime. Relying upon the definition of “works contract” in Article 366 (29A)(b) of the Constitution, he submitted that what is taxed cannot

M/S HERO EXPORTS vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,LUDHIANA

disallowing the claim of the assessee for adjustment of 10% of export incentive against indirect cost of trading goods while allowing deduction under section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act as it stood at the relevant time. Facts in the Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 7411/2007 (lead matter): 3. Assessee was engaged in the business of export

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

The appeal is allowed without

3). With effect from April 1, 1989, the provisions underwent substantial and material changes. A new scheme was introduced and the new substituted section 143(1) prior to the subsequent substitution with effect from June 1, 1999, in clause (a), a provision was made that where a return was filed under section 139 or in response to a notice under

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

3. An intimation under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 12.02.1992 was issued by the Assessing Officer disallowing

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. SOUTHERN TECHNOLOGIES LTD. vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, COIMBATORE

Section 45IC, the “Provision for NPA” can never be treated as one more another type of reserve. Coming to the accounting treatment, the appellant has given us the following chart to bring out the difference between “provision” and “reserve”: S.No. Provision Reserve 1. Provision is a charge or debit to the P& L Account. Reserve is an appropriation of profits

SHARP BUSINESS SYSTEM THR. FINANCE DIRECTOR MR. YOSHIHISA MIZUNO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III N.D

The appeals are hereby disposed of in terms of

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act to the extent of Rs. 3,36,32,300.00 was disallowed by the Assessing

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 the claim on the ground that the ’profits of the business’ computed under Section 80-HHC indicated a negative figure

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

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

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

ASST. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS vs. THANTHI TRUST

disallow the claim of the Trust for exemption under Section 4(3)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 for the Assessment Years 1955-56 to 1961-62. The Trust challenged the correctness of the tentative decision by filing a writ petition in the High Court of Judicature at Madras. On 25th June, 1961 the trustees of the Trust took

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA MILLS

The appeal is dismissed

3), an assessment made under section 143(1) is deemed to be incomplete or inadequate if proper depreciation is not allowed. These provisions also indicate, along with section 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

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

3) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement [“DTAA”], between India and USA, and upon applying section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, found that what was in fact transferred in the transaction between the parties was copyright which attracted the payment of royalty and thus, it was required that tax be deducted at source by the Indian importer