COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,RAJKOT vs. M/S GUJARAT SIDDHI CEMENT LTD

The appeal is disposed of accordingly

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short ‘Cit(A)’). The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer Was Upheld By The Cit(A) On The Ground That No Arguments Were Advanced & No Factual Details Were Furnished Regarding The Alleged Fluctuation On Account Of Foreign Exchange Rate. The Matter Was Carried In Further Appeal By The Assessee Before The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot (In Short ‘Tribunal’) Which Allowed The Claim Placing Reliance On A 2

disallowance made by the assessing officer was upheld by the CIT(A) on the ground that no arguments were advanced and no factual details were furnished regarding the alleged fluctuation on account of foreign exchange rate. The matter was carried in further appeal by the assessee before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot (In short ‘Tribunal’) which allowed the claim

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA MILLS

The appeal is dismissed

32A(4)/34(1) http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 21 regarding investment allowance, depreciation and development rebate". The provisions contained in Sections 34 and 37 were contrasted with Section 16 which deals with deduction from salary. The language here is "the income chargeable under the head "salary" shall be computed after making the following deductions namely

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, KERALA vs. M/S. TARA AGENCIES

Appeal is allowed and the

32A. (2) Where a deduction under this section is claimed and allowed for any assessment year in respect of any expenditure referred to in sub-section (1), deduction shall not be allowed in respect of such expenditure under any other provision of this Act for the same or any other assessment year.\024 9. All the three stages, namely, production

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

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

disallowed claims, both of depreciation and higher rate, on the ground that the assessee’s use of these vehicles was only by way of leasing out to others and not as actual user of the vehicles in the business of running them on hire. It had merely financed the purchase of these assets and was neither the owner nor user

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD

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

disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessees holding that they did not engage in the production or manufacture activity because of the reason that LPG was produced and manufactured in refineries and thereafter there was no change in the chemical composition or other properties of the Gas in the activity of filling the cylinder. This view was affirmed by Commissioner

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXGUJARAT III, AHMEDABAD & ANOTHER vs. KURJI JINABHAI KOTECHA

In the result the judgment of the High Court is set

disallowed loss in forward contracts and groundnut oil, groundnuts and groundnut seeds on the ground that it arose out of illegal contracts on account of the same being banned under section 15(4) of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner on appeal confirmed the decision of the l.T.O. but bifurcated the loss into two headings, namely