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

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

Appeal is disposed of accordingly

Section 4(2) is in terms replaced by Rule 5 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. 19 Page 20 JUDGMENT 15. Post 1973, this Court has in two of its decisions, namely, in Union of India v. Bombay Tyre International Limited, 1984 (17) ELT 329 (SC), clearly held as follows:- “Trade Discounts

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

BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX

D’, beginning with Section 28, deals with profits and gains of business or profession. Sections 30 to 36 relate to certain deductions which are allowed inter alia, on account of rent, rates, taxes, repairs and insurance in respect of premises and buildings used for the purposes of business or profession and includes a) where the premises are occupied

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

The appeals are dismissed

d)(ii) of the Act or the provisions of the MODVAT scheme. They are, therefore, of little assistance. The learned Attorney General brought to our attention the judgment of the Tribunal in Collector of C.Ex. vs. Incab Industries, [1990 (45) ELT 342], adopting it as a part of his argument. The Tribunal read the Rules pertaining to the MODVAT scheme

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

d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA, or sub-section (1) of section 272BB or sub-section (1A) of section 272BB or sub- section (1) of section 272BBB or clause (b) of sub-section (1) or clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE,INDORE vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD., CHHINDWARA

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

disallowed some of the deductions claimed by the respondent including the deductions in regard to damages. Having failed in the appeal before the Appellate Authority, the respondent approached the Tribunal once again and the Tribunal by the impugned order allowed the appeal of the respondent once again solely relying on its judgments in Assam Valley and Tungbhadra Industries cases (supra

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

D G M E N T A.K. SIKRI, J. Leave granted. 2) The appellant herein, after losing in all the fora below, has knocked the doors of this Court by means of the present appeal seeking the benefit of Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The Assessing Officer held that deduction

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

D work which enables educational institutions with Information and Communication Technology infrastructure for making education reach the public at large solely for charitable purpose and further reliance was placed upon ICAI Accounting Research Foundation v. DGIT(E)70, Bureau of Indian Standards v. DGIT(E)71 and GS1 India v. DGIT(E)72. 66. Mr. Ajay Vohra, learned senior counsel

COMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. VIKRAM DETERGENT LTD

The appeals are allowed to

d) (ii) of Section 4 as a trade discount. We are unable to accept the submission. The object of damage discount is to compensate the buyer for the damaged goods and logically, compensation for damaged goods could not feature as a relevant consideration for determining the price of the goods as manufactured at the time of clearance

MODI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MODINAGAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI

The appeals are allowed in the above

Section 143 or 144. Likewise, even though there is a shortfall in payment of tax according to the calculation made in the order of assessment, the assessee is obliged to pay interest on the seventy five percent of the amount of shortfall only upto the date of the assessment order, i.e., the date on which the amount of advance

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

KIRLOSKAR BROS. LTD. vs. COMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE

disallowance of the lower price on the ground that the bulk buyers did not constitute a different class of buyers and cannot be distinguished from other wholesale buyers; there cannot be more than one price for the same class of buyers. In the notice it was alleged that the claim for lower price on the ground that the bulk buyers

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY

D G M E N T Hrishikesh Roy, J. 1. Leave granted in SLP(C) No. 32761/2018 for analogous consideration with the related appeals. 2. The question of law to be answered in the present batch of appeals is on interpretation of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act (for short “the Act”) and the same reads as follows: “Whether

SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

d) the Court has widened the scope of consequences provided under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act based on the scope of Sections 194C and 201 of the Act, although such an approach is impermissible while interpreting a provision in the taxing statute. 10.3. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued in the alternative that the said sub-clause

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S JINDAL STEEL THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

Appeals are hereby dismissed

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

D. Nageswar Rao, learned counsel for the respondent assessee. 4. All the appeals are by the revenue assailing orders of various high courts dismissing its appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The core and common issue raised in all the appeals is the recomputation of deduction under Section 80 IA of the Income

SHAH ORIGINALS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 24 MUMBAI

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

d) would not include the face value of DEPB.” 8. The assessee further contends that the Judgment under appeal has not recorded a finding on whether or not the foreign exchange difference could be chargeable under the head “profits and gains of business and profession”. The judgment under appeal has not referred to sub-section (3) of Section

SHITAL FIBERS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

D G M E N T ABHAY S. OKA, J. 1. This group of appeals/petitions has been referred to a Bench of three Judges in view of the Order dated 10th December, 2015 in Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore v. Micro Labs Limited1 which records difference of opinion between two Hon’ble Judges of this Court