SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014, restricting and limiting the extent of disallowance to 30

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY

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 available with the Assessee, exceeded their investments

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. PATEL BROTHERS & CO. LTD, ETC. ETC

The appeals of the assessees are allowed while the

section (2A) was inserted w.e.f.1.10.1967 by Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1967. The material facts in these appeals illustrative of all connected matters, are these: The relevant assessment years are 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72 of which the corresponding previous years ended on September 30, 1968, September 30, 1969 and September 30, 1970 respectively. The assessee, a limited company

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

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

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

30 to 43D. None of the aforementioned sections require that, in order to qualify as an allowable deduction, the expenditure must be incurred in India. Respondents have claimed a deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act, 1961, which provides that any expenditure laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business or profession, not being

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA MILLS

The appeal is dismissed

30 to 43A. The argument that since Section 32 provides for depreciation it has to be allowed in computing the income of the assessee cannot in all circumstances be accepted in view of the bar contained in Section 34. If Section 34 is not satisfied and particulars are not furnished by the assessee his claim for depreciation under Section

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

30 to 43D of the IT 48 Act, unless such Losses/ Expenses are expressly or by necessary implication disallowed by the Act. Therefore, even applying the theory of Real Income, a debit which is expressly disallowed by Explanation to Section

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

disallowances which are not the subject matter of the appeal. 11.4. Assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A), Chennai. During the appellate proceedings, assessee raised additional grounds of appeal which according to it were ignored by the assessing officer in the assessment proceedings. One of the additional grounds raised by the assessee related to claim of depreciation of intangible assets

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

30 to 43D of the IT Act, unless such Losses/ Expenses are expressly or by necessary implication disallowed by the Act. Therefore, even applying the theory of Real Income, a debit which is expressly disallowed by Explanation to Section

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

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

disallowable under Explanation 1 to Section 37(1). It is submitted that thus either way, neither can the Respondent- Assessee claim business loss due to him not being in the smuggling business nor can he claim business expenditure as the same is prohibited under Explanation 1 to Section 37(1). 3.6 Making above submissions and relying upon the above submissions

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KOLKATA XII vs. M/S CALCUTTA EXPORT COMPANY

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

disallowance of the said expenditure under Section 40(a)(ia) of IT Act. 18) With a view to mitigate this hardship, Section 40(a)(ia) was amended by the Finance Act, 2008 and the provision so amended read as under:- “40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Sections 30

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

disallowance made in this regard is liable to be set aside.  24. In the result the assessment completed against the appellants with respect to the assessment years 2014­ 2015,   2015­2016   are   hereby   set   aside.   The   matter   is remitted to the Assessing Officer to pass revised orders, after   computing   the   I.T.   Appeal   Nos.   135,   146   & 4 C.A.@S.L.P.(C)No.12859

SMITH KLINE & FRENCH [INDIA] LTD.ETC. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

disallowed by the Income Tax Officer on the basis of and with reference to sub-clause (ii} of clause (a) of Section 40 which read thus at the relevant time: 40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Section 30

M/S APEX LABORATORIES P. LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT II

The appeal is dismissed without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

30 to 36) from the business Income if such expense is laid out/expended wholly or exclusively for the purpose of business or profession. However, the explanation appended to this sub-section denies claim of any such expense, if the same has been incurred for a purpose which is either an offence or prohibited by law. Thus, the claim

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

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MYSORE vs. M/S. TVS MOTORS COMPANY LTD

disallowed inclusion of PDI charges and free ASS charges in the assessable value by relying on the Custom Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) decision in the case of Maruti Udyog Limited v. CCE, Delhi-III1 and remanded the case to the Adjudicating Authority to re-examine the disputed issues in the light of settled legal positions and finalise

THE COMMNR.OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. M/S.SARAVANA SPINNING MILLS PVT. LTD

Appeals stand allowed with no order as to costs

disallowed the claim of the assessee. The Appellate Authority agreed with the I.T.O.. Before the Tribunal, the assessee contended that the amount expended for introducing Casablanca Conversion System was current expenditure under Section 10(2)(v) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 (Section 31(i) of the 1961 Act). The Tribunal inspected the spinning factory of the assessee