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

Section 40(b) referred to disallowances per se but after the Finance Act 1992 the said Section 40(b)(iv) allows

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY. vs. M/S. INDIAN ENGG. & COM.CORP. P. LTD

Accordingly fail and are dismissed

disallowed the same applying section 40 (a) (v) for the year 1971-72 and section 40 (A) (5) for the assessment

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KOLKATA XII vs. M/S CALCUTTA EXPORT COMPANY

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the IT Act’) was completed on 28.12.2007. The Assessing Officer, vide order dated 12.10.2009, disallowed the export commission charges paid by the assessee to M/s. Steel Crackers Pvt. Ltd. 9 amounting to Rs. 40

.M. SALGAOCAR & BORS. VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly Civil Appeal No. 657 of 1994 is allowed and Civil Appeal Nos

disallowance of the expenditure relating to the above assets under Section 40(c) of the Act on the ground that

COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS vs. BRAKES INDIA LTD., MADRAS

Accordingly fails and is dismissed

disallowed the balance of Rs. 15,376. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, allowed the assessee’s appeal holding that inasmuch as the salary of the foreign technical director was exempt from tax under section 10(6)(vii), the provision contained in section 40

CHECKMATE SERVICES P LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

disallowances. In terms of this scheme, Section 40 (which too starts with a non- obstante clause overriding Sections 30-38), deals

SHAH ORIGINALS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 24 MUMBAI

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

40 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified 2 respondent. The appeals arise from the orders dated 22.04.2010 in Income Tax Appeal Nos 431 and 996 of 2008 in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The subject matter of the Civil Appeals relates to the assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02. The appeals presented before this Court have a similar

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

disallows several such provisions under Sections 40A(7), 43B, 40 and 40A. Such disallowances alone could be added back to the taxable

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

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

disallowance can be made under section 44C in the facts and circumstances of this case. That section 44C applies only when a foreign company operates through its branches in India is made clear even in the explanatory note appended to the Finance Bill, 1976. [...] The difficulties of the nature as stated in the said memorandum as well

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

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 MUMBAI vs. M/S. ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

disallow expenditure incurred to earn exempt income by applying the provisions of newly inserted section 14A of the Act.” 17. By   Finance   Act,   2002,   a   statutory   provision   was   also inserted by way of proviso to Section 14A.  What was clarified by the Circular have been statutorily engrafted in the proviso to the following effect:­            “Provided that nothing contained in this

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 APEX LABORATORIES P. LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT II

The appeal is dismissed without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

40 defines it as “a thing punishable by this Code”, read with Section 43 which defines ‘illegal’ as being applicable to “everything which is an offence or which is prohibited by law, or which furnishes ground for a civil action”. It is therefore clear that Explanation 1 contains within its ambit all such activities which are illegal/prohibited by law and/or

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

The appeals are allowed in the above

40) of Section 2, no doubt, defines "regular assessment" as an assessment made under Section 143 and Section 144 but the fact remains that whether it is the original/first assessment or the revised assessment made pursuant to the appellate order, they are relatable to Section 143 alone - and where it is a best- judgment assessment, to Section 144. Of course

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

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

disallowed under Section 260 of the Income Tax Assessment Act, 1936(Cth). The Court held that under a literal interpretation Section 36A could apply to Page 18 JUDGMENT 18 allow the taxpayer to claim a loss. Barwick CJ, speaking for the majority relied on the decision in Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Westminster (Duke), [1936] AC 1 which advocated the literal

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COIMBATORE vs. M/S. LAKSHMI MACHINE WORKS

40 and 40A. The balance amount is, however, deductible. 2. On January 13, 1993, Rs.86,920 is paid on account of excise duty of the previous year 1991- 92. Since this amount pertains to the previous year 1991-92, it has not been debited to the aforesaid profit and loss account. 3. The company has received Rs.24