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

1) with Section 160 and Section 161 which are machinery sections (See The Law and Practice of Income Tax by Kanga & Palkhivala, eighth edition., at pp. 1268 and 1269). (b) Similarly, Section 40(a)(iii), quoted above, which finds place in Chapter IV (computation of business income) inter alia states that any payment which is chargeable under the head “Salaries

KERALA STATE BEVERAGES MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING CORPORATION LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1)

Accordingly, the civil appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

1), Thiruvananthapuram   vide   order   of   assessment   dated   28.12.2017. Debits contained in the Profit & Loss Account of the appellant with respect to payment of gallonage fee, licence fee, shop rental (kist) and surcharge   on   sales   tax,   amounting   to   a   total   sum   of Rs.811,90,88,115/­ were disallowed under Section 40

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

Disallowances. Keeping in mind the said scheme the position is that Sections 30 to 38 are deductions which are limited by Section 40. Therefore, even if an assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 36(1

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

40. The assesse's argument in these proceedings is that once the one year period in proviso to Section 143(1) ends, the return - and whatever calculations are contained in it, with respect to tax liability as well as the consequential refunds, become final, subject to only one event: issuance of notice under Section 143 (2). 41. To this Court

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 with what cannot be deducted in computing income under the head “Profits and Gains of Business and Profession”. Likewise, Section 40A(2) opens with a non-obstante clause and spells out what expenses and payments are not deductible

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

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

40 and 40A. Such disallowances alone could be added back to the taxable income. The IT Act does not disallow a provision for NPA; that, unless the “provision for NPA” is specifically disallowed under the IT Act, the same cannot be added back and, hence, such a provision for NPA cannot be added back in computing the taxable income. According

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

40. 27 (2019) 13 SCC 225 Civil Appeal No.2948 of 2023 etc. Page 24 of 91 c. In response to the principles for examining the constitutional validity of taxation statutes, he submitted that the test of vice of discrimination in a taxing statute is less rigorous. He submitted that the Parliament is entitled to make policy choices and adopt appropriate

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S WOODWARD GOVERNOR INDIA P. LTD

disallowed the deduction/debit. This fact is important. It indicates the double standards adopted by the Department. 11. The dispute in this batch of civil appeals centers around the year(s) in which deduction would be admissible for the increased liability under Section 37(1). 12. We quote hereinbelow Section 28(i), Section 29 Section 37(1) and Section

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

disallowance was warranted under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. ITAT following the decision of this Court in SA Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT18, directed the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of the assessee in respect of interest on borrowed fund 18 288 ITR 1 65 since the advances were made for the purposes of commercial expediency. 35.4. Revenue

DILIP N. SHROFF vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI &ANR

The appeal is allowed

disallowed in computing the total income of such person as a result thereof shall, for the purposes of clause (c) of this sub-section be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. Explanation 2\005\005\005\005. Explanation 3\005\005\005\005. Explanation 4.- For the purposes of clause (iii) of this

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA MILLS

The appeal is dismissed

40 or sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of sub- section (5) of section 40A, such depreciation shall be excluded for the purposes of sub-rule (1)." This Rule 5AA prescribed the particulars for depreciation necessary to be furnished for allowance of depreciation. Prior to insertion of Rule 5AA return of income tax in the form prescribed itself required particulars

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

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

disallowance under Section 40(a) (ia) of the IT Act shall be made if the tax deducted by them during the last month of the previous year has been paid on or before the last day of filing of return in accordance with the provisions of Section 139(1

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

40% was reduced to 20% (as in the original assessment) and an amount of Rs. 10,28,462.00 was disallowed. (vi) Accordingly, against the total amount of depreciation claimed at Rs. 1,47,97,994.00, an amount of Rs. 67,79,982.00 ( Rs. 57,51,520.00 + Rs. 10,28,462.00 = Rs. 67, 79, 982.00) was disallowed. (vii) Therefore, the depreciation

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 year 1972- 73. Which are the concerned assessment years herein. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that commission on sales cannot betreated as perquisites. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue’s appeal. The question before this court was whether

ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

1 (AAR), was not appealed against by the Revenue, and the exhaustive statement of law contained therein is something that he relied upon. According to him, if the position of the Revenue were correct, arbitrary results would ensue, inasmuch as his client, receiving a 2% commission, would, however, after the disallowance of the deduction under section 40

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

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

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

40 of 59 Delhi Vs. Meeta Gutgutia 8. Chintels India Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax – Circle -8, Delhi (2017) 397 ITR 416 (Delhi) 9. Sri. S.M. Kamal Pasha Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Central Circle – 6 (3) (2) Bangalore (2022 (8) TMI 966 (Karnataka) 10. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 Vs. Jay Infrastructure and Properties