M/S. MANGALAM PUBLICATIONS, KOTTAYAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM

Bench: This Court & On Leave Being Granted, Civil Appeals Have Been Registered. 3.

disallowances. He submits that for the assessment year 1993–1994, the appellant had maintained complete set of books of account, audited profit and loss account and balance sheet which were duly filed before the assessing officer. Following assessment proceedings, assessing officer passed the assessment order for the assessment year 1993 – 1994 on 27.01.1994 under Section 143 (3

UDAIPUR SAHKARI UPBOKTA THOK BHANDER LD. vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX

disallowed the claim on the ground that the appellant-society is a wholesaler of foodgrains and it is not a mere stockist as claimed and consequently it was not entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(e) of the 1961 Act. This order was applied for assessment years in question. Aggrieved by the assessment order(s), appellant filed appeals before

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

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

35 of 59 cannot use that opportunity to bring to tax income on the basis of the material available on record. xvi) It is submitted that further as per sub-section (2) of section 153A of the if any proceeding or any order of assessment or reassessment made under sub- section (1) is annulled in appeal or any other legal

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

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

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

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR vs. MCDOWELL & CO. LTD

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: The High Court Are As Follows: (1) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The I.T.A.T. Was Justified In Holding That The Unpaid Amount Of Bottling Fee Has, On Furnishing Of The Bank Guarantee, To Be Treated As Actual Payment & Accordingly Allowing The Deduction In Respect Of The Same Under Section 43B Of The Act, Even Though The Sum Has Not Been Actually Paid Before The Due Date Of Filing The Return Under Section 139(1) Of The Act. (2) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The I.T.A.T. Was Justified In Allowing The Depreciation On Research & Development Assets Which Related To The Closed Business Of Fast Food Division/Unit Of The Assessee-Company As Such Not Used During The Previous Year? (3) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The I.T.A.T. Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.2,77,887/- 2

disallowance of landscaping expenses not recovered u/s Section 35(1)(iv) of the Income Tax Act by wrongly relying on the decision in ITA No.1546/JP95 dtd. 30.03.2001?” 2. Subsequently a third question was framed which reads as follows: 3

M/S.L.R.BROTHERS,INDO FLORA LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR vs. COMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR

disallow the appeal.” 9 6. The matter was further carried in appeal before CESTAT whereat the impugned order was passed confirming the order of the   authorities   below   whilst   also   holding   that   amendment notification is prospective and cannot be applied to the present case. The relevant extract of the impugned order is reproduced below: “5. We have  carefully  considered the submissions

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

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

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

3 to Section 32 defines the term ‘assets’ and clause(b) of the Explanation defining ‘intangible assets’ is in similar terms as is referred to in Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. He then refers to the definition of ‘block of assets’ as provided in Section 2(11) of the Act, clearly bifurcating assets into tangible assets and intangible

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

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. D.P. SANDU BROS CHEMBUR (P) LTD

disallowed by the Assessing Officer who held that the amount of Rs.35 lakhs was taxable as "income from other sources" under Section 10(3) read with Section 56. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who came to the conclusion that the assessee was liable to pay capital gains on the amount of Rs. 35

THE MAVILAYI SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CALICUT

Bench: Us, The Assessing Officer Denied Their Claims For Deduction, Relying Upon Section 80P(4) Of The It Act, Holding That As Per The Audited Receipt & 2

3 agricultural credit societies, they would be entitled to the deductions under section 80P(2)(a)(i) read with section 80P(4) of the IT Act. 4. However, the Department contended that the judgment in Chirakkal (supra) was rendered per incuriam by not having noticed the earlier decision of another Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Perinthalmanna Service

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

M/S JINDAL EQUIPMENT LEASING CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

3 SCC 488 21 (2018) 9 SCC 1 (5-Judge Bench) 30 restrict a provision that Parliament has intentionally couched in broad terms. Illustratively, waiver of a trading liability has been treated as taxable business income under Section 28, as held in Commissioner of Income Tax v. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd.22 Again, in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Meghalaya

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

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