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

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

69,743/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of Research and development expenses holding that the same were not covered under Section

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

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

disallowance was warranted under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. ITAT following the decision of this Court in SA Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT18, directed the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of the assessee in respect of interest on borrowed fund 18 288 ITR 1 65 since the advances were made for the purposes of commercial expediency. 35.4. Revenue

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS vs. R.M. CHIDAMBARAM PILLAI ETC

69 I.T.R. 667, 672. 119 section 2(a)(2) of the Kerala Act adopts this rule of computation. Of the income so computed, 40 per coat, is to be treated as income liable to income-tax and the other 60 per cent only is deemed to be agricultural income within the meaning of that expression http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT

ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

69 is installed, used, accessed, displayed, or forgoing any number of COMPUTERS may access or otherwise utilize the file and print services and peer web services of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT. In addition, you may use the “Multiple Display” feature of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT to expand your desktop as described in the online Help file without obtaining a license for each

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

RAMNATH AND CO. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

Section 85-C earlier and Section 80-O later were inserted to the Act of 1961. Noteworthy it is that from time to time, the 53 ambit and sphere of Section 80-O were expanded and even the dealings with foreign Government or foreign enterprise were included in place of “foreign company” as initially provided. The requirement of approval

PRIDE FORAMER S.A. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

disallowed the deduction of business expenditure under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act 19612, as well as carrying 1 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. 2 Hereinafter, ‘the Act’. Digitally signed by ARJUN BISHT Date: 2025.10.17 15:19:21 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified Page 2 of 13 forward of unabsorbed depreciation under Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXGUJARAT III, AHMEDABAD & ANOTHER vs. KURJI JINABHAI KOTECHA

In the result the judgment of the High Court is set

disallowed loss in forward contracts and groundnut oil, groundnuts and groundnut seeds on the ground that it arose out of illegal contracts on account of the same being banned under section 15(4) of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner on appeal confirmed the decision of the l.T.O. but bifurcated the loss into two headings, namely

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

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

disallowances. He submits that for the assessment year 1993–1994, the appellant had maintained complete set of books of account, audited profit and loss account and balance sheet which were duly filed before the assessing officer. Following assessment proceedings, assessing officer passed the assessment order for the assessment year 1993 – 1994 on 27.01.1994 under Section

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

69 and 249 ITR 670) will apply even after insertion of Explanation 4 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with effect from 1.4.1976? FACTS (C.A. NO. 7115 OF 2005) For the assessment year 1996-97, the assessee-appellant returned an income of Rs. 1,32,44,507.29 subject to depreciation. The depreciation claimed

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN vs. M/S. TRAVANCORE COCHIN

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE

69,077/-) in the Assessment Year 1992-93 because, according to them, the lease rent issue was sub judice with the State at the instance of the respondent wherein the order dated 25.06.1988 passed by the State was challenged seeking re-fixation and reduction in the lease rent. It was contended that the State eventually decided the issue

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MUSSADILAL RAM BHAROSE

69 the assessee but it has to be borne in mind that though the onus shifted, the onus that was shifted was rebuttable. 1.3 If in an appropriate case the Tribunal or the fact finding body was satisfied by the evidence on the record and inference drawn from the record that the assessee was not guilty of fraud

BASIR AHMED SISODIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal is allowed

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

69   of   2006,   whereby   the   appellant’s   appeal   was dismissed   and   the   order   of   Income   Tax   Appellate   Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench (for short, ‘the ITAT’) came to be upheld. 2. In short, the appellant/assessee was served with a notice under  Section  143(2)  of  the   Income  Tax  Act,  1961   (for   short, ‘1961 Act’) by the Assessing Officer (for short, ‘Officer

KIRLOSKAR BROS. LTD. vs. COMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE

disallowance of the lower price on the ground that the bulk buyers did not constitute a different class of buyers and cannot be distinguished from other wholesale buyers; there cannot be more than one price for the same class of buyers. In the notice it was alleged that the claim for lower price on the ground that the bulk buyers

METTUR CHEMICAL AND INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TEX, MADRAS-1

Appeal is dismissed,

disallowed by the Income Tax Officer and in appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Income Tax Tribunal, on the further appeal, rejected the claim of the appellant by holding that though the industrial unit ultimately consisted of sixty hooker cells and the rectifier but it had commenced commercial production in the year ended 31.3.1957 and, therefore, the five years