JEYAR CONSULTANT & INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,MADRAS

disallowed the deduction claim of the assessee under Section 80HHC of the Act on the ground that the 'profits of the business computed under Section 80HHC indicated a negative figure'. This view was accepted by all the Courts and affirmed by this Court in the aforesaid judgment. Before this Court, submission of the appellant/assessee was that a reading of Section

M/S. PUROLATOR INDIA LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-III

Appeal is disposed of accordingly

3) For the purpose of this Section,- (a) “assessee” means the person who is liable to pay the duty of excise under this Act and includes his agent; (b) persons shall be deemed to be “related” if- (i) they are inter-connected undertakings; (ii) they are relatives; (iii) amongst them the buyer is a relative and a distributor

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

BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX

3) of Section 37 and if any expenditure or allowance was made allowable in other sections of the Act, the same could not be withdrawn or denied to the assessee because of the prohibitory provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 37. A similar view appears to have been expressed by the Gujarat High Court in case of Commissioner

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MYSORE vs. M/S. TVS MOTORS COMPANY LTD

Section 4(3)(d) of said Act as forming part of value of Excisable goods are in fact the expenses/deductions specifically disallowed

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

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

4 SCC 786 18 (1971) 3 SCC 550 Civil Appeal No.2948 of 2023 etc. Page 18 of 91 • Functionality or essentiality tests must be applied to decide what a plant is. Ultimately, a plant is an apparatus used by a businessman for carrying on his business. It does not include his stock in trade, but it does include all goods

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

4) Where a regular assessment under sub-section (3) of this section or Section 144 is made - (a) any tax or interest paid by the assessee under sub-section (1) shall be deemed to have been paid towards such regular assessment; (b) if no refund is due on regular assessment or the amount refunded under sub-section (1) exceeds

A.M. MOOSA vs. COMMNR OF INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM

disallowed the claim on the ground that the ’profits of the business’ computed under Section 80-HHC indicated a negative figure. An appeal was preferred before Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Cochin Bench, hereinafter, referred to as ’the CIT(A)’. The said appellate authority also was of the same view and dismissed the appeal. The assessee appellant preferred an appeal

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE vs. DAI ICHI KARKARIA LTD

The appeals are dismissed

3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, already paid on the raw material or component parts used in the production or manufacture of such goods. It is, therefore, only a notification or order relating to the excisable goods that gives an exemption equal to the excise duty already paid on raw material used therein that is not to be taken

IPCA LABORATORY LTD. vs. DY. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

disallowed the deduction of Rs. 3.78 crores. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the Appeal filed by the Appellants on 11th October, 1999. On 29th December, 2000 the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Second Appeal. By the impugned Judgment the Bombay High Court has dismissed the Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. The question for consideration

BASIR AHMED SISODIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal is allowed

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

Section 68 and added in declared income of assessee.  Accordingly, the computation of income of assessee for assessment year 1998­99 is as follows: 3 Income shown in the Returns 87500/­ 1. Disallowed deduction U/s.24(1)  as per discussion  7200/­ 2. Additions in gross profit  10000/­ 3. Additions on the basis of less  Household expenses withdrawals 18000/­ 4

SHAH ORIGINALS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 24 MUMBAI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI

disallowing deduction under Section 80 HHC is illegal. In fine, the arguments are:- i. The foreign exchange credited to the EEFC account is a direct revenue from the export of garments. ii. The foreign exchange credited to the EEFC account is used for the business purposes of the assessee. 1 (1978) 4 SCC 358. 2 (2009) 13 SCC 1. 3

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

3) of section 200.” Penalty for Failure to Deduct Tax at Source: “Section 271C: (1) If any person fails to – (a) Deduct the whole or any part of the tax as required by or under the provisions of Chapter XVII-B; or (b) Pay the whole or any part of the tax as required by or under, - (i) Sub-section

ASST. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS vs. THANTHI TRUST

disallow the claim of the Trust for exemption under Section 4(3)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 for the Assessment

THE CITIZEN COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR G.RANGA RAO. HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed reportable

3 sub-section (2) of Section 80P which enlists a co-operative society engaged in carrying on the business of banking or providing credit facilities to its members. For the sake of better understanding, we reproduce below the aforesaid portion of Section 80P: “80P. Deduction in respect of income of co-operative societies. – (1) Where, in the case

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

4 Clause (2) No authorization holder shall refuse to sell Foodgrains and other essential articles during business hours on the presentation to him of a valid permit/indent/ration card to the extent of the amount of Foodgrains or other essential articles due on the permit/indent/ration card. Clause (3) No authorization holder shall sell Foodgrains at a price in excess of that

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

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

4. Commissioner of Income Tax- II, Thane Vs. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. (2015) 374 ITR 645 (Bombay) 5. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore and Ors. Vs. M/s. Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. (2022) 443 ITR 382 (Karnataka) 6. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-III Vs. Kabul Chawla (2016) 380 ITR 573 (Delhi) 7. Principal