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

d) as it originally stood and does not purport to add a new condition retrospectively, as has wrongly been held by the High Court. 24. Third, any ambiguity in the language of Explanation 3C shall be resolved in favour of the assessee as per Cape Brandy Syndicate v. Inland Revenue Commissioner (supra) as followed by judgments of this Court

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

D G M E N T CIVIL APPEAL NOS.3952-3955 OF 2002 WITH Civil Appeal Nos. 8509-10 of 2002 Commissioner of Income Tax, Baroda \005 Appellant (s) versus M/s. Core Health Care Ltd. ... Respondent (s) KAPADIA, J. For the sake of convenience we state the facts occurring in Civil Appeal Nos.3952-55 of 2002 \026 Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Ahmedabad

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELGAUM vs. M/S. AKAY COSMETICS PVT. LTD

5 of 16 when the price of M/s Nemaru was taken as the basis for determination of the assessable value, the department had erred in disallowing deduction in respect of freight, insurance, handling charges from the assessable value. In this connection, it was further urged that it was not open to the department to adopt the price of M/s Nemaru

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA MILLS

The appeal is dismissed

d) extra-shift allowance double shift and triple shift; (xii) total depreciation; (xiii) investment allowance claimed (also indicate rate); (xiv) remarks (indicate the amount of initial depreciation, investment allowance or development rebate allowed in respect of the assets in an earlier year). (2) Where the depreciation in respect of any asset is not admissible as a deduction under clause

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

d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA, or sub-section (1) of section 272BB or sub-section (1A) of section 272BB or sub- section (1) of section 272BBB or clause (b) of sub-section (1) or clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section

SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

5 was issued only on 15-7-2005 by which date the time for payment of tax at source has also expired and as such it was contended that the provisions as contained in Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would be applicable not from A.Y. 2005-06 but from 2006-07. We, however, do not subscribe

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

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. 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 CENTRAL EXCISE, MYSORE vs. M/S. TVS MOTORS COMPANY LTD

5. It seems to us clear that the advertisement which the dealer was required to make at its own cost benefited in equal degree the appellant and the dealer and that for this reason the cost of such advertisement was borne half and half by the appellant and the dealer. Making a deduction out of the trade discount on this

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

D. Nageswar Rao, learned counsel for the respondent assessee. 4. All the appeals are by the revenue assailing orders of various high courts dismissing its appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The core and common issue raised in all the appeals is the recomputation of deduction under Section 80 IA of the Income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

D work which enables educational institutions with Information and Communication Technology infrastructure for making education reach the public at large solely for charitable purpose and further reliance was placed upon ICAI Accounting Research Foundation v. DGIT(E)70, Bureau of Indian Standards v. DGIT(E)71 and GS1 India v. DGIT(E)72. 66. Mr. Ajay Vohra, learned senior counsel

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

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

D]eductibility of expenditure incurred in prosecuting a civil proceeding depends upon the nature and purpose of the legal proceeding in relation to the assessee’s business and the same cannot be affected by the final outcome of that proceeding. However wrong-headed, ill advised, unduly optimistic or overconfident in his conviction the assessee might appear in the light

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

BASIR AHMED SISODIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal is allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR

D G M E N T A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. This appeal takes exception to the final judgment and order dated   21.8.2008   passed   by   the   High   Court   of   Judicature   for Rajasthan at Jodhpur (for short, “the High Court”) in Income Tax Appeal   No.   69   of   2006,   whereby   the   appellant’s   appeal   was dismissed   and   the   order   of   Income   Tax   Appellate

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