COMMNR.,CENTRAL EXCISE, MADRAS vs. M/S. ADISON & CO. LTD

Bench: Us Because Of An Order Dated 16.07.2008, By Which There Was A Reference To A Larger Bench In View Of The Importance Of The Questions Involved. 2. Civil Appeal No. 7906 Of 2002 Arises From The Judgment Dated 23.11.2000 Passed By The Madras High Court In R.C. No. 01 Of 1999. Civil Appeal No. 14689 Of 2015 Was Filed By The Revenue Against The Judgment Dated 26.11.2014 In Central Excise Appeal No. 21 Of 2009. Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 18426 Of 2015, 18423 Of 2015, 18425 Of 2015, 23722 Of 2015, 12282 Of 2016, 16142 Of 2016 & 16141 Of 2016 Are Filed Against The Judgment Of The Andhra Pradesh High Court In Central Excise Appeal Nos. 21 Of 2005, 9 Of 2005, 51 Of 2004, 10 Of 2005, 44 Of 2004, 38 Of 2004 & 18 Of 2005 Respectively. 3. Civil Appeal No. 8488 Of 2009 Is Filed Against The Judgment Dated 20.08.2008 Passed By The Bombay High 2

disallowed only because they are not payable at the time of each invoice or deducted from the invoice price. It is the submission of the Assessee that the turnover discount is known to the dealer even at the time of clearance which has also been upheld by this Court. It is clear from the above that the Assessee is entitled

SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

section (1) of section 139; or (B) in any other case, on or before the last day of the previous year: Provided that where in respect of any such sum, tax has been deducted in any subsequent year or, has been deducted – (A) during the last month of the previous year but paid after the said due date

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

disallowed under Section 43-B which, as stated above, was inserted with effect from 1-4-1984 *** 22. It is important to note once again that, by the Finance Act, 2003, not only is the second proviso deleted but even the first proviso is sought to be amended by bringing about a uniformity in tax, duty, cess

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 3 vs. ABHISAR BUILDWELL P. LTD

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

disallowance can be made only on the basis of material collected during the search or requisition. In case no incriminating material is found, as held by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jai Steel (India) v. Asst. CIT (supra), the earlier assessment would have to be reiterated. In case where pending assessments have abated, the Assessing Officer

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JAIPUR vs. PRAKASH CHAND LUNIA (D) THR LRS

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

disallowed otherwise through a statute. This Court in SC Kothari (supra) had merely laid down the general proposition of law by taking note of the position prevailing in other countries, but in any case, it has got no application over a case of either a penalty or confiscation. 21.2 The law as laid down in Haji Aziz (supra) despite being

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX 4 BENGALURU 2 vs. M/S JUPITER CAPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED

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

disallowance of capital loss claimed by the assessee of Rs.164,48,55,840/- by holding that there is extinguishment of rights of 153340900 shares when no such extinguishment of rights is made out by Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND Date: 2025.01.08 11:04:03 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified 2 the assessee as required under section

M/S JINDAL EQUIPMENT LEASING CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

disallowed that claim; that view was upheld. This Court stated that : (SCC pp. 679-81, paras 5-6) “5. … In amalgamation two or more companies are fused into one by merger or by taking over by another. Reconstruction or “amalgamation” has no precise legal meaning. The amalgamation is a blending of two or more existing undertakings into one undertaking

CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX vs. M/S SAFARI RETREATS PRIVATE LIMITED

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

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

55 11 (2017) 12 SCC 1 12 (2021) 15 SCC 534 13 (1983) 1 SCC 147 Civil Appeal No.2948 of 2023 etc. Page 12 of 91 transactions culminating into deliverable goods and services or both to the ultimate end-user, who is the customer. Reliance has been placed on the observations made by this Court in the case of Union

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

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

55 1. Since the issues raised in the captioned appeals are the same, they were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The central issue involved in these appeals relates to the interpretation of Section 44C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1961”), more particularly whether

M/S. SOUTHERN TECHNOLOGIES LTD. vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, COIMBATORE

2)] In Commissioner of Income-tax, A.P. v. T. Veerabhadra Rao K. Koteswara Rao & Co. reported in 155 ITR 152 at 157, it was found that the debt was taken into account in the income of the assessee for the assessment year 1963-64 when the interest accruing thereon was taxed in the hands of the assessee. The said interest

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, KERALA vs. M/S. TARA AGENCIES

Appeal is allowed and the

section 2(7)(c) of the Finance Act, 1978 and was entitled to concessional rate of tax. The Tribunal disallowed the claim on the ground that there was no processing as the end product remained the same and the entire process was manual. The High Court while placing reliance on the decision in Chowgule\022s case (supra) came

SHARP BUSINESS SYSTEM THR. FINANCE DIRECTOR MR. YOSHIHISA MIZUNO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III N.D

The appeals are hereby disposed of in terms of

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA

55,25,86,888.00 including interest under Section 234B of the Act. Consequently, penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated by the assessing officer against the assessee. In the assessment order, assessing officer made several disallowances which are not the subject matter of the appeal. 11.4. Assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A), Chennai

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. CALCUTTA KNITWEARS, LUDHIANA

55 considered the scope of Section 36A of the Income Tax Assessment Act, 1936(Cth), which on a literal interpretation allowed the taxpayer to make a profit and still claim a loss for tax purposes. The Commissioner argued the taxpayer’s conduct amounted to a tax avoidance scheme and should therefore be disallowed under Section 260 of the Income

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. D.P. SANDU BROS CHEMBUR (P) LTD

disallowed by the Assessing Officer who held that the amount of Rs.35 lakhs was taxable as "income from other sources" under Section 10(3) read with Section 56. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who came to the conclusion that the assessee was liable to pay capital gains on the amount of Rs. 35 lakh after

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

THE BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are dismissed

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

disallowed it under the income under   the   head   “interest   on   securities”.     The   Appellate Tribunal confirmed the view. This Court, in paragraphs nos. 3 to 7, held thus:  “3. Learned counsel for the Revenue argued that the   income   from   business   and   securities   fell under different heads, namely, Section 10 and Section 8 of the Act respectively, that they were mutually   exclusive

M/S. MANGALAM PUBLICATIONS, KOTTAYAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM

Bench: This Court & On Leave Being Granted, Civil Appeals Have Been Registered. 3.

55,117.00) from 1985 to 1993, it was considered necessary to reassess the income of the assessee as well as that of the partners for the assessment years 1988-1989 to 1993-1994. After obtaining the approval of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Trivandrum, notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee