MANSAROVAR COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI

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

disallowed). Separate penalty proceedings were initiated under sections 271(1)(a). 271(1)(c), 273/274 and 271-B of the Act. 2.12 The assessees then preferred appeals before the CIT(A). Subsequently on 08th December, 2000, the writ petitions filed by the assessees came to be dismissed by the High Court as the respective assessees moved the Appellate Authority prescribed

SHAH ORIGINALS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 24 MUMBAI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI

disallowing the deduction under Section 80 HHC, in the facts and circumstances of the case, are valid and tenable. 9. We have perused the citations Mr. V. B. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the assessee, has placed a strong reliance on. The cases relied on by the assessee are clearly distinguishable on the point of deciding the appeal. The ratio

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

4A) of section 80HHC Amount of disclaimer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ACTION POINTS 1. Report is to be filed along with return of income. 2. "Total turnover" does not include cash compensatory support, duty drawback and profit on sale of import entitlement licences. 3. "Export turnover" means the sale proceeds (excluding freight and insurance) receivable in convertible

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

4A, FL­11, FL­12 licence holders.  The FL­1 licence was for sale of foreign liquor in sealed bottles, without privilege of consumption within the premises.  The gallonage fee is payable as per Section 18A of the Kerala Abkari Act and Rule 15A of the Foreign Liquor Rules.  The appellant was the only licence holder for the relevant years

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS MARUTI UDYOG LTD.) vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN

disallowance   of   Rs.3,08,99,171/­   in respect   of   Sales   Tax   Recoverable Account,   under   Section   43B   of   the Income­tax Act ?” 10. We   need   to   first   notice   the   provisions   of Section 43B under which deduction is sought to be 10 claimed. Section 43B is as follows: “43B.Certain   deductions   to   be   only   on actual   payment.­Notwithstanding   anything contained   in   any   other   provision

P.R. PRABHAKAR vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, COIMBATORE

disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the premise that they having incurred loss in respect of export business were not entitled thereto. An appeal preferred thereagainst was rejected by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, however, on further appeal preferred by the Appellant opined that the commissioner received by the Appellant from the other exporters

JEYAR CONSULTANT & INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,MADRAS

4a), that in respect of the amount of the export turnover specified therein, the deduction under this sub-section is to be allowed to a supporting manufacturer, then the amount of deduction in the case of the assessee shall be reduced by such amount which bears to the total profits of the export business of the assessee the same proportion

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KARNAL vs. M/S CARPET INDIA.PANIPAT(HARYANA)

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

4A) xxx (4B) xxx (4C) xxx Explanation:- For the purposes of this section:- (a) “convertible foreign exchange” means foreign exchange which is for the time being treated by the Reserve Bank of India as convertible foreign exchange for the purposes of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (42 of 1999), and any rules made thereunder; (aa) “export out of India

IPCA LABORATORY LTD. vs. DY. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

disallowed the deduction of Rs. 3.78 crores. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the Appeal filed by the Appellants on 11th October, 1999. On 29th December, 2000 the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Second Appeal. By the impugned Judgment the Bombay High Court has dismissed the Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. The question for consideration

M/S HERO EXPORTS vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,LUDHIANA

disallowing the claim of the assessee for adjustment of 10% of export incentive against indirect cost of trading goods while allowing deduction under section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act as it stood at the relevant time. Facts in the Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 7411/2007 (lead matter): 3. Assessee was engaged in the business of export