THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III, BANGALORE vs. M/S WIPRO LIMITED

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

5), though the legislature did not enact any such prohibition and it completely overlooks and ignores the legislative background of section 10B has no substance. It is urged that as such the issue involved in the present case is directly covered by the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Moser Baer (supra), against which a special

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY. vs. M/S. INDIAN ENGG. & COM.CORP. P. LTD

Accordingly fail and are dismissed

disallowed the same applying section 40 (a) (v) for the year 1971-72 and section 40 (A) (5) for the assessment

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

Section 40 (a) (iib) and is not an amount which can be disallowed   under   the   said   provision.   Therefore   the disallowance made in this regard is liable to be set aside.  24. In the result the assessment completed against the appellants with respect to the assessment years 2014­ 2015,   2015­2016   are   hereby   set   aside.   The   matter   is remitted to the Assessing

MODI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MODINAGAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI

The appeals are allowed in the above

Section 143 or 144. Likewise, even though there is a shortfall in payment of tax according to the calculation made in the order of assessment, the assessee is obliged to pay interest on the seventy five percent of the amount of shortfall only upto the date of the assessment order, i.e., the date on which the amount of advance

BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX

5) was included in Section 37 by the Finance Act in 1983 with effect from 1st April 1979 and was subsequently omitted by the Finance Act, 1997 with effect from 1st April, 1998. At the relevant point of time, namely, the assessment year 1994-1995, all the aforesaid provisions of Section 37 were available and, therefore, applicable to the case

M/S DALMIA POWER LTD. vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA

disallowed in the hands of Amalgamating Company and Transferor Company (relating to the Transferred Undertaking) respectively under the Income Tax Act, credit of tax under section 115JB read with section 115JAA of the   Income   Tax   Act,   credit   of   foreign   tax paid/withheld, if any, pertaining to Amalgamating Company and Transferor Company (relating to the Transferred   Undertaking)   as   may   be   required consequent

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY

5 of 22 expenditure is incurred for earning tax free income. Since actual expenditure figures are not available for making disallowance under Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA MILLS

The appeal is dismissed

5) a revised return could be filed if there was an omission or wrong statement. Assessee had prepared a Profit and Loss Account providing for depreciation but it did not opt for that option in the normal course of its business. High Court found that in the original return Profit and Loss Account containing the provision for depreciation had been

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

5 which are the charging sections. Sections 160 and 161 provide a machinery for collection of a charge which is imposed in general terms elsewhere and yet Sections 160 and 161 are the sections which like Section 201(1) imposes a vicarious liability on an agent to be assessed in respect of the income of the principal. The liability

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

5. We may note here that in the case of ACIT v. Rogini Garments2, ITAT held that in order to prevent the taxpayers from taking undue advantage of existing provisions of the IT Act by claiming repeated deductions in respect of the same amount of eligible income, in-built restriction was introduced by enacting Sub-section (9) of Section

SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

disallowed in terms of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. In the order of assessment, the AO took note of and dealt with various submissions made on behalf of the assessee-appellant in this regard as follows:- 5

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

Section 36(1)(iii) was disallowed by the Department for the AY 1992-93. However, vide order dated 3.1.03, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance saying that the assessee had given such advance from its Own Funds. 5

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

In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed

section 10(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

COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM vs. SMT. LUCY KOCHUVAREED

The appeals are allowed, but in the circumstances of the case we make no

disallowance of Rs. 2500/- for 1959-60 and Rs. 3500/- for 1960-61 towards upkeep and maintenance of immature area is irregular as it is not based on any rational method. The orders of assessment for these years are therefore set aside and the cases are remanded to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Trichur, for fresh disposal according

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

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

SHAH ORIGINALS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 24 MUMBAI

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

5 before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai. On 25.10.2007, the Appellate Tribunal, by the common order dated 25.10.2007, set aside the disallowance of the deduction claimed under Section