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

31 Provided that the provisions of this sub-section shall not apply to any return furnished for the assessment year commencing on or after the day of April 2017.” The concerned explanatory Note to Finance Act, 2017 was:- “59. Processing of return within the prescribed time and enable withholding of refund in certain cases. 59.1 Before amendment by the Finance

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

31. Section 43B falls in Part-V of the IT Act. What is apparent is that the scheme of the Act is such that Sections 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

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

The appeal is allowed without

disallowing deductions, allowance or relief. 13. One thing further to be noticed is that intimation under section 143(1)(a) is given without prejudice to the provisions of section 143(2). Though technically the intimation issued was deemed to be a demand notice issued under section 156, that did not per se preclude the right of the Assessing Officer

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

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

31:00 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified 2 The assessee is a Government Company as defined under Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956. The assessee filed return on 30.12.1991 for the assessment year 1991-92 showing a loss amounting to Rs. (-)427,39,32,972/-. Due to a bonafide mistake the assessee claimed 100% depreciation

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

31,84,701/-, in all, totalling Rs. 1,02,03,121/- from which AO allowed deduction of Rs. 20,34,605/- on account of Hire Purchase Finance Charges leaving a balance provision for NPA of Rs. 81,68,516/-. Before the AO, Assessee claimed deduction in respect of Rs. 81,68,516/- under Section 36(1)(vii) being Provision

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

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

31 (1957) SCC OnLine SC 12 Civil Appeal No.2948 of 2023 etc. Page 26 of 91 He invited our attention to Section 16(3) of the CGST Act, which bars the claim of depreciation on ‘plant and machinery’ if the assessees choose to avail of ITC. Thus, ITC is allowable only when depreciation is not claimed. He submitted that

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

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

The appeal is allowed

31,364 --------------- TOTAL INCOME 3,40,59,506 Rounded off 3,40,59,510 7. Assessed accordingly. Give credit for prepaid taxes. Charge interest u/s 234B and 234C. Initiate penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Issue demand notice and challan." 10. Thus, in the said order, valuation of the land as made by the District Valuation Officer

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA MILLS

The appeal is dismissed

31, 1965 directing that "where the required particulars have not been furnished by the assessee and no claim for depreciation has been made in the return, the Income-tax Officer should estimate the income without allowing depreciation allowance". The Court observed that the record did not disclose that any particulars regarding depreciation were furnished by the assessee or that

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

Section 271(1)(c) had not been introduced. He concluded the issue against the appellant on the basis of the decision of the Karnataka High Court in P.R. Basavappa & Sons v. CIT, 243 ITR 776 (Karnataka). He added the amounts disallowed i.e. Rs. 10,28,462.00, Rs. 57,51,520.00 and Rs. 1,15,000.00. He concluded that by adding

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

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

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

disallowed otherwise through a statute. This Court in SC Kothari (supra) had merely laid down the general proposition of law by taking note of the position prevailing in other countries, but in any case, it has got no application over a case of either a penalty or confiscation. 21.2 The law as laid down in Haji Aziz (supra) despite being

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

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

31 of 59 that the intention of the Parliament was to never tinker with such category of cases in the 153A regime. This is because when no two assessments were taking place in respect of such category of cases, there was no question of doing away with the requirement of two parallel assessments. In such category of cases, the expression

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

Appeals stand allowed with no order as to costs

1) excludes those items of expenditure which expressly falls in Sections 30 to 36. The effect is to delimit the scope of allowability of deductions for repairs to the extent provided for in Sections 30 to 36. To decide the applicability of Section 31(i) the test is not whether the expenditure is revenue or capital in nature, which test

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

disallowing expenses on unethical activities.” (emphasis supplied) Interestingly, a similar conclusion was arrived at by the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, in a report called Savings Available Under Full Generic Substitution 26 45th Report on Issues Relating to Availability of Generic, Generic-Branded and Branded Medicines, their Formulation

BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX

1) and Sub-Section (3) of Section 37 and if any expenditure or allowance was made allowable in other sections of the Act, the same could not be withdrawn or denied to the assessee because of the prohibitory provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 37. A similar view appears to have been expressed by the Gujarat High Court