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

disallowance of ITC on goods and services used in the construction of buildings could be a logical corollary only if the buildings were intended to be sold as stock by the developer instead of being further used for providing taxable goods or services. There is no contradiction in promoting ITC on goods and services used for the construction of buildings

DILIP N. SHROFF vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI &ANR

The appeal is allowed

disallowed in computing the total income of such person as a result thereof shall, for the purposes of clause (c) of this sub-section be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. Explanation 2\005\005\005\005. Explanation 3\005\005\005\005. Explanation 4.- For the purposes of clause (iii) of this

M/S.VIRTUAL SOFT SYSTEMS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-I

disallowed. (vii) Therefore, the depreciation allowable was Rs. 80,18,011.00 (Rs. 1,47,97,995.00 \026 Rs. 67,79,982.00 = Rs. 80,18,011.00) (viii) Making a deduction on account of depreciation as in sub-Paragraph (vii) above, the Appellant was assessed at a loss

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

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

disallowed the deduction claim of the assessee under Section 80HHC of the Act on the ground that the 'profits of the business computed under Section 80HHC indicated a negative figure'. This view was accepted by all the Courts and affirmed by this Court in the aforesaid judgment. Before this Court, submission of the appellant/assessee was that a reading of Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MUSSADILAL RAM BHAROSE

67 1987 SCC (2) 39 JT 1987 (1) 307 1987 SCALE (1)196 CITATOR INFO : F 1992 SC 591 (7,8) ACT: Income Tax Act, 1961, s.271(1) (c)--Assessee--Conceal- ment of particulars of his income or furnishing inaccurate particulars--Assessee to prove that failure to file correct return of income did not arise from fraud, gross or wilful

M/S POLYFLEX (INDIA) PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARNATAKA

The appeal is dismissed without costs

disallowed the claim for the current year. Questioning the addition to the income of the relevant previous year, the assessee company filed writ petition which was allowed by the High Court. The facts of the case are quite close to Remeshwar Prasad’s case (supra). The following observations in the judgment may be noted as they clearly reveal the fact

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

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

disallowance can be made under section 44C in the facts and circumstances of this case. That section 44C applies only when a foreign company operates through its branches in India is made clear even in the explanatory note appended to the Finance Bill, 1976. [...] The difficulties of the nature as stated in the said memorandum as well

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

M/S. W. T. SUREN & CO. LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. BOMBAY

Section 37(1) of the 1961 Act. It upheld the view of the Appellate Tribunal that liability for payment to which the employer was subject under the local Gratuity Act, to the workers was an expenditure wholly and exclusively laid out or expended for the purpose of the business of the assessee. The court disagreed with the view

THE MAVILAYI SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CALICUT

Bench: Us, The Assessing Officer Denied Their Claims For Deduction, Relying Upon Section 80P(4) Of The It Act, Holding That As Per The Audited Receipt & 2

disallow deductions claimed under section 80P of the IT Act, notwithstanding that mere nomenclature or registration certificates issued under the Kerala Act would show that the assessees are primary agricultural credit societies. These divergent decisions led to a reference order dated 09.07.2018 to a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court. 4 5. The Full Bench of the Kerala High

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR vs. MCDOWELL & CO. LTD

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: The High Court Are As Follows: (1) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The I.T.A.T. Was Justified In Holding That The Unpaid Amount Of Bottling Fee Has, On Furnishing Of The Bank Guarantee, To Be Treated As Actual Payment & Accordingly Allowing The Deduction In Respect Of The Same Under Section 43B Of The Act, Even Though The Sum Has Not Been Actually Paid Before The Due Date Of Filing The Return Under Section 139(1) Of The Act. (2) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The I.T.A.T. Was Justified In Allowing The Depreciation On Research & Development Assets Which Related To The Closed Business Of Fast Food Division/Unit Of The Assessee-Company As Such Not Used During The Previous Year? (3) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The I.T.A.T. Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.2,77,887/- 2

disallowance of landscaping expenses not recovered u/s Section 35(1)(iv) of the Income Tax Act by wrongly relying on the decision in ITA No.1546/JP95 dtd. 30.03.2001?” 2. Subsequently a third question was framed which reads as follows: 3. “Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, bottling fees chargeable from the assessee under the Rules framed under

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

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

Appeal is allowed and the

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 to the conclusion that the activity of the assessee amounted to processing. The court while setting aside the judgment

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 MUMBAI vs. M/S. ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

67,527/­.   A notice under Section 143(2) was issued to the assessee.  The Assessing Officer vide its order dated 27.03.2006 held that during the year under consideration, the assessee   company   was   in   receipt   of   both   taxable   and non­taxable   dividend   income.     Accordingly,   the   dividend   on investment exempt under Section 10(23G) was considered by the A.O.   for   the   purpose

KILLICK NIXON LTD., MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMNR. OF INCOME TAX,MUMBAI

In the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High

Section. He contended that, in the case of the present appellant, the giving effect order made by the CIT (Appeals) had not been fully worked out by the Assessing Officer as income under the four heads i.e. a) disallowance of bad debts to the extent of Rs. 68,02,046.00; b) income from house property to the.extent

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KERALA vs. THE KILKOTAGIRI TEA & COFFEE ESTATE CO. LTD

Section 33A(1)(a). The Tribunal found :- "The Company chose to claim the allowance in respect of 1965 clearing fully, i.e., Rs.30,846/- and in respect of 1967 clearing although they had incurred an expenditure of Rs.89,800/- and entitled to Rs.44,900/-, they restricted the claim to the difference between Rs.40,000/- the total claim for which they

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

67,600/-. He claimed a deduction in respect of aforementioned income in terms of Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"). Exemption claimed under the aforementioned provision was 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