PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 6 vs. KHYATI REALTORS PVT. LTD

The appeal is allowed, in the above terms, without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

disallowed by Explanation to Section 36(1)(vii), if claimed, has got to be added back to the total income

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

disallowed by Explanation to Section 36(1)(vii), if claimed, has got to be added back to the total income

M/S MUNJAL SALES CORPORATION vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,LUDHIANA

Disallowances. Keeping in mind the said scheme the position is that Sections 30 to 38 are deductions which are limited by Section 40. Therefore, even if an assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 36

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

disallowance of Rs.1,56,76,000/- in respect of borrowings utilized for purchase of machines. Accordingly, the above question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Department. 15. Apart from the above question under Section 36

BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX

Sections 30 to 36 could not be disallowed under Section 37 (4) of the Act. Dr. Pal also referred to a Full

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA

disallowances, relying heavily on the legislative intent and the definition of "long-term finance" in the Explanation to Section 36

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

The appeals are allowed

36. There is no dispute that this amount was paid by the assessee to its employees within the stipulated time. Embargo specified under Section 43B or 40A(9) of the Act does not come in the way of the assessee. Therefore, the High Court was wrong in disallowing

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

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act to the extent of Rs. 3,36,32,300.00 was disallowed by the Assessing

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY

disallowance of expenditure incurred in earning an income, it is a condition precedent that such income should not be includible in total income of assessee. This Court accordingly concluded that for attracting provisions of Section 14A, the proof of fact regarding such expenditure being incurred for earning exempt income is necessary. The relevant portion of Justice Gogoi’s judgment reads

.M. SALGAOCAR & BORS. VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly Civil Appeal No. 657 of 1994 is allowed and Civil Appeal Nos

disallowance under Section 36(l)(iii) which provision provides for deduction to be allowed in respect of the amount of interest

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ALOM EXTRUCTIONS LIMITED

disallowed. This resulted in great hardship to the ...3/- - 3 - employers. They represented to the Government about their hardship and, consequently, pursuant to the Report of the Kelkar Committee, the Government introduced Finance Act, 2003, by which the second proviso stood deleted with effect from 1st April, 2004, and certain changes were also made in the first proviso by which

SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is confined to the amount “payable” and not to the amount “already paid”, we find that these aspects of interpretation do not require much dilation in view of the ratio of the decision of this Court in the case of Palam Gas Service (supra). 16.5. In fact, the decision in Palam

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, COIMBATORE vs. M/S. TEXTOOL CO. LTD

The appeal is dismissed with no order

36,22,224/- under Section 40A(7) of the Act. However, deduction for the balance amount was disallowed on the ground

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

PRAKASH COTTON MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL)

In the result, we allow that appeal partly and remit the

disallowed even though the said expenditure was less than the expenditure allowable under Section 37(2) of the I.T. Act? 4. Whether there was any evidence or material before the Tribunal to hold that the expenditure to the extent of Rs.2,500 at Diners Club and C.C.I. was not laid wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business

S.A. BUILDERS LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

disallowance of Rs. 18 lacs by the CIT(A) was erroneous and the entire sum of Rs. 82 lacs should have been allowed. http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6 In paragraph 35-41 of its order the Tribunal has considered in detail the question of allowability of the interest amount on the borrowed funds. The Tribunal

M/S. SARAF EXPORTS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR - III

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

Section 143(2) of the Act, 1961. 2.3 By order dated 24.11.2010, the Deputy Commissioner disallowed the deductions as claimed. The CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4822 OF 2022 Page 2 of 36

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