SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

35 with in the next question. For the present purpose, we may notice the relevant observations of this Court in Calcutta Export Company as regards Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act as follows (at p. 662 of ITR):- “16. The purpose is very much clear from the above referred explanation by the Memorandum that it came with a purpose

MANSAROVAR COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI

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

disallowed). Separate penalty proceedings were initiated under sections 271(1)(a). 271(1)(c), 273/274 and 271-B of the Act. 2.12 The assessees then preferred appeals before the CIT(A). Subsequently on 08th December, 2000, the writ petitions filed by the assessees came to be dismissed by the High Court as the respective assessees moved the Appellate Authority prescribed

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

Appeal is allowed and the

disallowed the claim of the respondent assessee. 5. The respondent assessee aggrieved by the said http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 16 order preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The appeal filed by the respondent assessee was allowed on the ground that the respondent assessee was a small scale industrial unit

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

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

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

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

section which provides, inter alia, the manner in which the disallowable amount is to be computed. The expenditure to be disallowed is the difference between the expenditure in the nature of head office expenditure and the least of the following three computations: (a) an amount equal to 5 per cent. of the adjusted total income; (b) an amount equal

M/S GANAPATHY & CO.BANGALORE vs. COMMR.INCOME TAX,BANGALORE

The appeal is dismissed

Section 35(2A) in respect of donation to Aparna Ashram?” 3. The necessary discussions can best be unfolded by taking up each of the claims of deduction made by the assessee which were decided against the assessee by the High Court by the order under challenge. Page 3 JUDGMENT 3 4. Disallowance

M/S.SHASUN CHEMICALS AND DRUGS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

The appeals are allowed

35(2AB) of the Act. However, invoking the provisions of Section 40A(9) of the Act the said expenditure is disallowed

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

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI vs. M/S. PEARL DRINKS LTD

Section 35(E)(1) of the Central Excise before the CEGAT who by a reasoned order dismissed the same, holding that the disallowance

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

disallowed under the IT Act, the same cannot be added back and, hence, such a provision for NPA cannot be added back in computing the taxable income. According to the appellant, the purpose behind prescribing RBI Directions 1998 is to ensure that members of the public and shareholders of the company obtain a true picture of the financial health

KILLICK NIXON LTD., MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMNR. OF INCOME TAX,MUMBAI

In the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High

35,888.00 was paid by the appellant on 12.02.1999 upon which a final certificate under Section 92 read with Section 91 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998 and the KVSS, 1998 was issued certifying that the appellant had paid towards full and final settlement of the tax arrears determined in the order dated 19.1.1999 on the declaration made

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELGAUM vs. M/S. AKAY COSMETICS PVT. LTD

35) ELT 349, this Court held that the demand raised without notice was invalid. That, section 11-A clearly proceeded to say that prior show-cause notice must be issued to the person against whom any demand on grounds of short-levy or non-levy was proposed and, therefore, post-facto show-cause notice cannot be regarded as adequate

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELGAUM vs. M/S. AKAY COSMETIC (P) LTD. HUMBLI

section 35-L(b) of the Act. By judgment delivered by this Court today in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Belgaum v. M/s Akay Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. [Civil Appeal Nos.3792-3803 of 2000], this Court has partly allowed the department’s appeal. However, the order of remand on the question of "related person" during the period 4/91 to 3/93

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 MUMBAI vs. M/S. ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGER

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

disallow expenditure incurred to earn exempt income by applying the provisions of newly inserted section 14A of the Act.” 17. By   Finance   Act,   2002,   a   statutory   provision   was   also inserted by way of proviso to Section 14A.  What was clarified by the Circular have been statutorily engrafted in the proviso to the following effect:­            “Provided that nothing contained in this

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS MARUTI UDYOG LTD.) vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN

disallowance   of   Rs.3,08,79,171/­   in respect   of   Sale   tax   recoverable   amount,the   High Court in paragraph 52 of the judgment has noticed relevant   facts   in   above   reference   in   following words: ­ “52. The facts are the Assessee pays sales tax  on the purchase of raw materials and computers used in the   manufacture   of   cars.   Though, the sales­tax paid

SHITAL FIBERS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA

disallowed. 7. The appeal preferred by the appellant against the said Order was dismissed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). In appeal preferred by the appellant before the ITAT, the appellant was unsuccessful. Thereafter, an appeal was 3 304 ITR 319 Civil Appeal No.14318 of 2015 etc. Page 3 of 20 preferred before the Punjab and Haryana High Court which

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

35. During the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2001-2002, the Assessing Officer noted the claim of the assessee regarding interest on investments made in subsidiary company as well as interest on borrowings for payment of interest-free loan to sister concern and its directors. Vide the assessment order dated 09.02.2004 passed under Section

M/S. DUNCANS INDUSTRIES LTD., CALCUTTA vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE,NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of in

disallowed and why the charges on account of freight, interest on freight, rebate, octroi and interest on receivables should not be included in the assessable value and also why the cost of C.F.C. packing charged and realized by them from the buyers should not be included in the assessable value under Section 4(1) (a) and Section