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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA MILLS

The appeal is dismissed

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 to be furnished if the assessee claimed depreciation. Mr. Dastur said that the case

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

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

M/S. ROTORK CONTROLA INDIA (P) LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed in favour of the assessee with no order as to

disallowed on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions of Section 40A(7) of the 1961 Act. This view of the ITO was affirmed by CIT(A). The Tribunal held that for the earlier assessment year relating to 1973-74, actuarially ascertained liability for gratuity arising under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 was an allowable deduction. However

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

40A 10,30,000 51,600 Less: Excise duty of 1991-92, deductible by virtue of section 43B [see para 49.10] 10,81,600 (-) 86,920 Business income (under section 28) Capital gains 9,94,680 20,000 Gross total income 10,14,680 Less: Deduction Under section 80HHC [see Note] http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page

M/S.SHASUN CHEMICALS AND DRUGS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

The appeals are allowed

2: Whether deduction on account of payment of bonus to the employees of the assessee is not eligible under Section 36 of the Act, as it is hit by Section 40A(9) of the Act? As a fact it needs to be noted that in the Assessment Years in question the workers of the assessee had raised a dispute

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

2 : Where an individual is a partner in a http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6 firm on behalf, or for the benefit, of any other person (such partner and the other person being hereinafter referred to as "partner in a representative capacity" and "person so represented" respectively,)- (i) interest paid by the firm to such individual

M/S GANAPATHY & CO.BANGALORE vs. COMMR.INCOME TAX,BANGALORE

The appeal is dismissed

disallowance of service charges paid to M/s Universal Trading Company made under Section 40A(2)? ii. Whether on the facts

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. VANAZ ENGINEERING PVT.LTD

The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the High Court

2) 951 1986 SCC Supl. 266 JT 1986 325 1986 SCALE (1)978 ACT: Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections 22, 29 and 40A(7)(b)(ii) - Gratuity - Scheme introduced for first time in assessee firm in 1970 - On basis of Actuarial Report total liability as on December 31, 1970 debited to Profit and Loss Account Assessment proceedings - Income Tax Officer

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, COIMBATORE vs. M/S. TEXTOOL CO. LTD

The appeal is dismissed with no order

2 : assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 92,06,978/- as contribution/provision towards the approved gratuity fund. As per the breakup of the said amount, an amount of Rs.5,84,754/- was paid as annual premium to the Life Insurance Corporation(“LIC” for short); a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- was paid to the LIC as initial contribution