COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA MILLS

The appeal is dismissed

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 double shift and triple shift (to be furnished only if extra shift allowance is claimed); (xi) depreciation claimed (a) initial depreciation; (b) normal depreciation

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

viii) Making a deduction on account of depreciation as in sub-Paragraph (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

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

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

viii) It is submitted that the erstwhile scheme of block assessment under Section 158BA envisaged assessment of “undisclosed income” for two reasons. First reason was that there were two parallel assessments envisaged under the erstwhile regime i.e. (i) block assessment under Section 158BA to assess CA No. 6580/2021 Etc. Page 28 of 59 the undisclosed income and (ii) the regular

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

JT.COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,SURAT vs. SAHELI LEASING & INDUSTRIES LTD

Appeals stand allowed as mentioned hereinabove but with

disallowed out of depreciation. Penalty proceedings under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act were initiated. In response to the show cause notice issued by the Revenue, Assessee filed its reply denying the allegations and contending that no penalty can be imposed on it, when returned income was NIL. 15. Penalty was sought to be imposed in respect

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. CALCUTTA KNITWEARS, LUDHIANA

VIII, Taxing Statutes). This Court in CIT v. Keshab Chandra Mandal, AIR 1950 SC 265 has held that hardship or inconvenience cannot alter the meaning of the language employed by the legislature if such meaning is clear and apparent. Hence departure from the literal rule should only be done in very rare cases, and ordinarily there should Page 17 JUDGMENT

RAMNATH AND CO. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

1 to submit that it is now settled beyond 35 doubt that taxing statutes are subject to the rule of strict interpretation, leaving no room for any intendment; and the benefit of ambiguity in case of an exemption notification or an exemption clause must go in favour of the revenue, as exemptions from taxation have a tendency to increase