SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

9) of Section 2 of the Act to mean ‘the period of twelve months commencing on the 1st day of April every year’. 17.5. In the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal v. Isthmian Steamship Lines: (1951) 20 ITR 572, a 3-Judge Bench of this Court exposited on the fundamental principle that ‘in income-tax matters

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

9. We quote herinbelow relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as it stood at the material time: “General 37. (1) Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in Section 30 to 36 [***] and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively

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

9. The basic question which arises for determination is : whether Section 40(b) of the 1961 Act is a stand-alone section or whether it operates as a limitation to the deduction under Sections 30 to 38 of the 1961 Act? 10. On the above question of law, Mr. S. Ganesh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of assessee, contended

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

40A(2) opens with a non-obstante clause and spells out what expenses and payments are not deductible in certain circumstances. Section 41 elaborates conditions which apply with respect to certain deductions which are otherwise allowed in respect of loss, expenditure or trading liability etc. If we consider this scheme, Sections 40- 43B, are concerned with and enact different conditions

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

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

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 GANAPATHY & CO.BANGALORE vs. COMMR.INCOME TAX,BANGALORE

The appeal is dismissed

40A(2)? ii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the loss shown by the assessee in the film business amounting to Rs.31,48,670/- was allowable? iii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the assessee's claim