CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THRISSUR

disallowed. This amount was added back to the taxable income of the assessee, for which a demand notice and challan was accordingly issued. This order of the assessing officer dated 24th January, 2005, was challenged in appeal by the assessee on various grounds. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’], vide its order

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

IV of the IT Act which 7 deals with computation of total income. It indicates how the taxable income should be arrived at vide Sections 14 to 59. It is not an assessment Section. Section 145 helps to arrive at taxable total income. It nowhere indicates that the net profit arrived at shall be by adopting the accounting standards

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

iv) and that it never came under Section 36(1)(iii) of the 1961 Act as argued on behalf of the assessee? Legal Position Explained 14. Before enactment of FA 1992, broadly speaking, payment of interest by the firm to any partner of the firm constituted Business Disallowance

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,NEW DELHI vs. M/S ELI LILLY & COMPANY (INDIA) P.LTD

36 accrues directly or indirectly under five circumstances mentioned therein. To give an example of as to how the 1961 Act is an integrated Code we may state that Section 9(1) explains the meaning of the words “deemed to accrue or arise in India” in Section 5(2)(b). Section 9(1)(i) performs two functions: I. It deems

VODAFONE IDEA LTD(EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 26 (2)

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

iv) disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return; (v) disallowance of deduction claimed under Sections 10-AA, 80-IA, 80-IAB, 80-IB, 80-IC, 80-ID or Section 80-IE, if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1

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

iv) Pitney Bowes India (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT8 14.2. From an analysis of the aforesaid decisions, it is evident that by expending non-compete fee, assessee had acquired an enduring benefit of an ephemeral nature. Therefore, the question which follows is whether such payment would be eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1) of the Act? 14.3. In this connection

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

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA

IV. Conclusion ....................................................................................... 20 I. Introduction 1. The question for adjudication in this batch of appeals is whether the National Co-operative Development Corporation (NCDC), appellant- assessee, is entitled to deductions under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of three specific heads of income, being, (i) Dividend income on investments in shares, (ii) Interest earned

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS PVT.LTD

The appeal is allowed without

36(2) of the Act were not fulfilled, the assessing officer reopened the assessment by issuing a notice in terms of Section 148 of the Act on the ground that it has reason to believe that the income assessable to tax had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act. The respondent asked for the reason

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA MILLS

The appeal is dismissed

36 and is also not in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses and laid out or expended wholly or exclusively for the purpose of business or profession of the assessee shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession". It was submitted that expenditure can be allowed only

M/S.VIRTUAL SOFT SYSTEMS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-I

iv) Adding the above amount, the Appellant’s income became Rs. 69,15,757.00 (Rs. 68,00,757.00 + Rs. 1,15,000.00 = Rs. 69, 15, 757.00) (v) Depreciation on leased vehicles claimed at 40% was reduced to 20% (as in the original assessment) and an amount of Rs. 10,28,462.00 was disallowed. (vi) Accordingly, against the total amount

ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

disallowance of the deduction under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, end up paying tax of a huge amount, way beyond the commission, resulting in extreme financial hardship. Thus, if section 195 of the Income Tax Act could be construed in a manner so as to avoid such a result, this must be done. Further, he relied

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

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

36 of 59 made earlier will be empowered to reframe those assessments as well. It is submitted that restricting annulled assessments to only abated assessments, is putting the wheel back to a situation as if there was no search. 4.1 The submissions on behalf of the assessees in a tabulated form thus are as under: S. N . Particulars Assessme

BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX

iv) On the balance of the profits and gains of the business (computed in the manner aforesaid) Nil (2A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-Section(1) or sub-Section (2), no allowance shall be made in respect of so much of the expenditure in the nature of entertainment expenditure incurred by any assessee during any previous year which expires after

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JAIPUR vs. PRAKASH CHAND LUNIA (D) THR LRS

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

disallowed otherwise through a statute. This Court in SC Kothari (supra) had merely laid down the general proposition of law by taking note of the position prevailing in other countries, but in any case, it has got no application over a case of either a penalty or confiscation. 21.2 The law as laid down in Haji Aziz (supra) despite being

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

The appeals are allowed

iv) or clause (iva) or clause (v) of Sub-section(1) of Section 36. However, we are here concerned with the payment of bonus which is not covered by any of the aforesaid clauses of sub-section (1) of Section 36 but is allowable as deduction under clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 36. Therefore, Section

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE

The appeal is allowed

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

36,06,201/-. As regards the issue of immunity from penalty and prosecution, the Commission, having regard to the fact that the appellant had co-operated in the proceedings before the Settlement Commission and true and full disclosure was made by the appellant before the Commission in paragraph 18.2 of its Order granted immunity under Section 245H(1) from

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