COMMR.OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ALOM EXTRUCTIONS LIMITED

disallowed. This resulted in great hardship to the ...3/- - 3 - employers. They represented to the Government about their hardship and, consequently, pursuant to the Report of the Kelkar Committee, the Government introduced Finance Act, 2003, by which the second proviso stood deleted with effect from 1st April, 2004, and certain changes were also made in the first proviso by which

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

5.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of this section shall not apply and shall be deemed never to have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which the provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies.” 6. The time limit

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. CORE HEALTH CARE LTD

43 defines certain terms relevant to income from profits and gains of business and, therefore, the said section commences with the words "In Sections 28 to 41 and unless the context otherwise requires" "actual cost" shall mean the actual cost of the assets to the assessee, reducing by that portion of the cost thereof, if any, as has been

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA MILLS

The appeal is dismissed

43(6)(b) of the Act. The provisions of section 32(1) of the Act are intended to confer benefit on the assessee of claiming deductions on account of depreciation in respect of the specified classes of assets and, whenever it is claimed, it ought to be allowed." High Court also noticed that in that case admittedly the assessee

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

SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

5 “Since the assessee failed to deduct the tax at source while making payment to truck owners/ operators exceeding Rs. 20,000/-, the assessee was asked to explain as to why deduction claimed on account of such payments from the income be not disallowed within the meaning of Section 40(a) (ia) of the Act. The learned counsel

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

disallowed for such non- deduction of tax at source. 30. The above examples show that the 1961 Act is an integrated code in which one cannot segregate the computation machinery from the collection and recovery machinery. (ii) On the Scope of Section 192(1): 38 31. On behalf of the tax-deductor-assessee the basic contention before us was that

M/S. SARAF EXPORTS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR - III

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

disallowing the deductions claimed under Section 80-IB of the Act, 1961. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is the subject matter of the present appeal. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4822 OF 2022 Page 3 of 36 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee has heavily relied upon the decision of this Court

SHITAL FIBERS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

43,347/- was claimed by the appellant under Section 80-IB on the total profit of Rs. 4,19,40,609/-. The appellant claimed a deduction of Rs. 1,76,90,799/- under Section 80-HHC. 4. The return filed by the appellant was processed under Section 143(1)(a) and a statutory notice under Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HYD. vs. M/S. P.J. CHEMICALS LTD

In the result, we affirm the judgments of the High Courts which have

disallowances of the items in this capitalisation and .a ratio of 80:20 was accepted as the formula for ascertaining the capital. That, however, is not the controversy in this appeal. The point is as to the deductibility of a central subsidy of Rs. 9,97,085 which the assessee had received from the "actual cost" for purposes of calculation

M.M. AQUA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI - III

Appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

5): “2.2. I have perused the case laws cited and also the above sanction letter from IDBI and also the auditor's note referred by the assessing officer. I have perused Schedule 3 of the balance sheet as on 31-3-2001 and find that the above loan appears as on 31-3-2001 and is part of the total

MAHARANA MILLS PVT. LTD. vs. INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD & ORS

In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed

5)(b) of the said Act". For the assessment year 195 1-52 the respondent was assessed for the first time under the Indian Income-tax Act, and basing its claim on paragraph 2 of the aforesaid Order it asked for depreciation allowance in respect of its assets http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 15 by working

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

disallowed by the assessing officer which was affirmed by the first appellate authority i.e., Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). On appeal by the assessee, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which decision has been affirmed by the High Court. The third additional issue relates to what is called carbon credit

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

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

43. Let us first examine the operative part of Section 44C. For clarity, the operative part of Section 44C can be divided into the following distinct components: a) Section 44C applies specifically to non-resident assessees. b) Section 44C governs the computation of income chargeable under the specific head “Profits and gains of business or profession”. c) Section 44C mandates

M/S MANGALORE GANESH BEEDI WORKS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MYSORE

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

disallowing the claim.” 18. The High Court did not accept the view of the Tribunal and in support of that it was contended before us by learned counsel for the Revenue that the highest bid of AOP-3 was accepted by the High Court on or about 21st September, 1994 and therefore there was no question

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

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

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

43,000 (-) 80,000 86,680 2. Export turnover \026 It is Rs.24,90,000 being the brought to India (within the time limit), in the convertible foreign exchange. 3. Total turnover \026 It is Rs.30,50,000. 4. Export incentive \026 Export incentive is Rs.6,50,000. Amount of deduction is as follows: (Rs.86,680 x Rs.24