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

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

VII Vs. Piramal Glass Limited) of the revenue for the assessment year 2001-02. 4.4. SLP(C) D. No. 22308/2022 has been filed by the revenue against the judgment and order dated 11.01.2022 passed by the Madras High Court dismissing Tax Case (Appeal) No. 600 of 2010 (CIT, Chennai Vs. M/s. Pentasoft Technologies Limited) of the revenue for the assessment

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

The appeal is allowed without

vii) read with Section 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

CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX vs. M/S SAFARI RETREATS PRIVATE LIMITED

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

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

disallowance of ITC on goods and services used in the construction of buildings could be a logical corollary only if the buildings were intended to be sold as stock by the developer instead of being further used for providing taxable goods or services. There is no contradiction in promoting ITC on goods and services used for the construction of buildings

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA MILLS

The appeal is dismissed

vii) amount on which depreciation is allowable total of items (ii) to (iv) exclusive of amounts relating to assets referred to in item (vi); (viii) rate of depreciation; (ix) total number of days worked to be furnished only if extra shift allowance is claimed; http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 21 (x) total number of days worked

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

vii) above, the Appellant was assessed at a loss of Rs. 11,02,255.00 (Rs. 69,15,757.00) \026 Rs. 80,18,012.00 = - Rs. 11,02,255.00) In this manner, the carry-forward loss of Rs. 15,53,487.72 originally claimed by the appellant was reduced to Rs. 11,02,225.00. By order dated nil September, 2002, the Deputy Commissioner

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

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

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

VII, Noida and two silver bars found at premises of M/s Lunia & Co Delhi and in Civil Appeal Nos. 7689-90 of 2022 Page 5 of 27 sustaining addition of Rs.3,06,36,909/- being unexplained investment in the hands of the assessee under Section 69A of the Act? (ii) If the answer to the above question is in affirmative

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

SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

vii) of sub-section (1) of section 9; (iii) “professional services” shall have the same meaning as in clause (a) of the Explanation to section 194J; (iv) “work” shall have the same meaning as in Explanation III to section 194C; *** *** ***”12 13.3. Section 43 in the very same Part D of Chapter IV of the Act of 1961 defines various

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

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

disallowed. Civil Appeal Nos 8291 of 2015 & 4451 of 2016 Page 3 of 55 5. The respondent, in its reply to the notice referred to above, clarified that the expenses in question could not have been classified as head office expenditure for the reason that Section 44C of the Act, 1961 presupposes that at least a part of the expenditure

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

vii) are satisfied. 27 13. On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that no taxable event arises at the stage of amalgamation. According to them, income can be said to arise only upon the actual realisation or sale of the substituted shares, and not at the point of their allotment in the amalgamated company. The scheme

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

36 1996. All the trade bodies60 as well Bureau of Indian Standards are members of its governing council. 54. It was submitted that the revenue had granted exemptions to the assessee society under Section 12A and Section 10(23C)(iv) while issuing various certificates from time to time (from AY 1996-1997 to 2007-2008); therefore, it had accepted that

NATIONAL CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V, DELHI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL

vii. The expenditure incurred by the appellant-Corporation cannot be capital expenditure as neither any enduring advantage or benefit has accrued to it, nor had any asset come into existence which belonged to or was owned by the appellant-Corporation. 16. A reference was made to the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay v. Associated Cements

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

disallow deductions claimed under section 80P of the IT Act, notwithstanding that mere nomenclature or registration certificates issued under the Kerala Act would show that the assessees are primary agricultural credit societies. These divergent decisions led to a reference order dated 09.07.2018 to a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court. 4 5. The Full Bench of the Kerala High

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

Appeal is allowed and the

36. In Bharat Forge and Press Industries vs. CCE (1990) 1 SCC 532, this court observed that tariff item 26-AA(iv) encompasses all sorts of pipes and tubes. It calls for no distinction between pipes and tubes manufactured out of sheets, rods, bars, plates or billets and those turned out from larger pipes and tubes

C0MMNR. OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI vs. ORIENTAL FIRE & GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD

Bench: The Controller Of Insurance.

disallowing certain expenditure was set aside by orders dated 09.02.1979 and 09.09.1980. 4. Both the orders were questioned by the Revenue before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, ’the Tribunal). By reason of an order dated 30.11.1981, the Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not correct in refusing to accede to the deductions under the aforementioned heads claimed

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) 2 vs. M/S MAHAGUN REALTORS (P) LTD

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

disallowed in the subsequent year, in the case of the then transferee company. The decision of the Delhi High Court, in Spice (supra), after discussing the decision in Saraswati Syndicate, went on to explain why assessing an amalgamating company, without framing the order in the name of the transferee company is fatal: “10. Section 481 of the Companies Act provides