M/S. I.C.D.S. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

Section 32 of the 1 Page 2 JUDGMENT Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”). The assessment years involved are 1991-1992 to 1996-1997. 2. The assessee is a public limited company, classified by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) as a non-banking finance company. It is engaged in the business of hire purchase, leasing and real

BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX

32 of the Act, by virtue of the non-obstante clause used in Sub-section (1) of Section 37 such expenses could not again be referable to Section 37 and the different provisions thereof. In other words, Dr. Pal urged that since the aforesaid expenses had been specifically allowed to be deducted the said benefit could not be taken away

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S JINDAL STEEL THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

Appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

32. Revenue has relied upon the decision of the Calcutta High Court in CIT Vs. ITC Ltd. (supra). In that case, the High Court rejected the first contention of the revenue that the assessee therein was not entitled to the benefit under Section 80-IA of the Act because the power generated was consumed at home or by other business

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(CENTRAL) vs. M/S. GWALIOR RAYON SILK MFG.(WVG.)CO.LTD

The appeal is partly allowed

Section 32 Income-tax Act 1961. HEADNOTE: The assessee-respondent in the appeal Civil Appeal No. 2916(NT) of 1980 claimed depreciation on the written down value of roads constructed by it as forming part of the cost of the factory building and also claimed development rebate on industrial transport used for transporting raw materials and finished goods within

SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

disallowed from deduction while computing the total income of the assessee-appellant? Relevant Provisions 22 13. For determination of the questions aforesaid, we need to closely look at the statutory provisions in the Act of 1961 which have material bearing on this case. 13.1. It is noticed that elaborate provisions have been made in Chapter XVII

M/S MANGALORE GANESH BEEDI WORKS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MYSORE

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

disallowing the claim.” 18. The High Court did not accept the view of the Tribunal and in support of that it was contended before us by learned counsel for the Revenue that the highest bid of AOP-3 was accepted by the High Court on or about 21st September, 1994 and therefore there was no question

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III, BANGALORE vs. M/S WIPRO LIMITED

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

32(1)(ii-a), the case for permitting it is far stronger under Section 10B (8) where the statute itself expressly and unequivocally gives the assessee the right to change his option. It is submitted that the basic premise is that a substantive claim, which the assessee considers to be more beneficial, must be allowed to be made until

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. CORE HEALTH CARE LTD

32, 32A, 33 and 41 which deal with concepts like Depreciation. The concept of Depreciation is not there in Section 36(1)(iii). That is why the legislature has used the words "unless the context otherwise requires". Hence, Explanation 8 has no relevancy to Section 36(1)(iii). It has relevancy to the aforementioned enumerated sections. Therefore, in our view

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

PRIDE FORAMER S.A. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

disallowed the deduction of business expenditure under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act 19612, as well as carrying 1 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. 2 Hereinafter, ‘the Act’. Digitally signed by ARJUN BISHT Date: 2025.10.17 15:19:21 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified Page 2 of 13 forward of unabsorbed depreciation under Section 32

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

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

32 of 55 would need to be added to the Explanation if the respondents’ contention were to be accepted: Explanation as provided under Section 44C of the Act, 1961 Explanation under Section 44C of the Act, 1961, as would be implied if the respondents’ contention were to be accepted “head office expenditure” means executive and general administration expenditure incurred

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

32 (1971) 2 SCC 779 33 (1990) 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

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

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 1 vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

32 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified 2 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9305 OF 2017 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9306 OF 2017 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9307 OF 2017 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9308 OF 2017 A N D CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9309 OF 2017 J U D G M E N T A.K. SIKRI, J. The question of law that arises of consideration

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

32 matters dealt with therein, in computing the income referred to in section 28 – (vii) subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), the amount of any bad debt or part thereof which is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee for the previous year: Provided that in the case of an assessee to which clause (viia

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

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

Section 32 third proviso was inserted to the following effect: “Provided also that, in respect of the previous year relevant to the assessment year on the 1st day of April, 1991, the deduction in relation to any block of assets under this clause shall, in the case of a company, be restricted to seventy-five per cent of the amount