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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

7. In addition to the above, a five-day grace period was allowed to employers in terms of the Manual of Accounting Procedure (Part-I General). However, the grace period was discontinued by circular bearing No. WSU/9(1)(2013)/Settlement/35631 dated 08.01.2016, made applicable to contributions for January 2016 onwards. B. ESI Regulations: “31. Time for payment of contribution

VODAFONE IDEA LTD(EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 26 (2)

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

7. Apart therefrom, the provisions of Section 143(1) (a)(i) indicate that the intimation sent under Section 143(1)(a) shall be without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (2). The legislature, therefore, intended 6 (2003) 260 ITR 84 77 (1996) 222 ITR 140 Guj. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2377 OF 2020 (@ SLP (C) NO.1169 OF 2019) VODAFONE IDEA

ASSOCIATED STONE INDUSTRIES (KOTAH) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJASTHAN

The appeal is disposed of as above and the matter is

7, which were answered against the assessee, are still in appeal before us:- 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the re- assessments for the years 1950-51 to 1956-57, were validly made under section 34(1) (a) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances

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

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. In the next AY 1993-94, the same situation took place. Once again vide order dated 1.1.03, the Tribunal deleted disallowance

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

7 SCC 714 24 (1973) 1 SCC 442 Civil Appeal No.2948 of 2023 etc. Page 21 of 91 provides that the construction of a complex, building, civil structure or a part thereof intended for sale to a buyer, wholly or partly, is also a supply of service, except where the entire consideration has been received after issuance of the completion

RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD JAIPUR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (ASSESSMENT)

In the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI

disallowing 25% of the 3 depreciation, restricting the depreciation to 75%. Additional tax under Section 143(1-A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.8,63,64,827/- was demanded. The assessee filed an application under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 18.02.1992 praying for rectification of the demand. The assessee also filed a petition

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

The appeals are allowed in the above

7) for the assessment year for which the provisional assessment had to be made could be assessed provisionally as a registered firm. In the context of these provisions, ‘regular assessment’ could only mean the original assessment made under Section 143 or 144. Section 141A which was introduced by Finance Act, 1968 laid down that in a case where the return

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

7), 43B, 40 and 40A. Such disallowances alone could be added back to the taxable income. The IT Act does not disallow a provision for NPA; that, unless the “provision for NPA” is specifically disallowed under the IT Act, the same cannot be added back and, hence, such a provision for NPA cannot be added back in computing the taxable

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

b), and not expand the scope of the definition of royalty contained in explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi). Further, he referred to Circular No. 10/2002 dated 09.10.2002 by the Central Board of Direct Taxes [“CBDT”] in which “remittance for royalties” and “remittance for supply of articles or…computer software” were addressed as separate and distinct payments, the former

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

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

B for which information available. AO not entitled to reopen entire assessment and undertake Assessmen t u/s 153A could only be done in respect of issue A relating to which incriminatin g material is found during search. On conclusion of assessmen t u/s 153A, Revenue may, basis other information, proceed u/s 147 and/or 263. CA No. 6580/2021 Etc. Page

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA MILLS

The appeal is dismissed

7 of 21 regarding investment allowance, depreciation and development rebate". The provisions contained in Sections 34 and 37 were contrasted with Section 16 which deals with deduction from salary. The language here is "the income chargeable under the head "salary" shall be computed after making the following deductions namely: -". Mr. Dastur like Mr. Verma also referred to judgments

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. STEPWELL INDUSTRIES LTD

The appeal is allowed to the above extent

b) of Section 35B(1). This has not been done. We are of the view that the appellate order of the Tribunal has to be set aside. We set aside the order of the High Court as also the appellate order of the Tribunal and remand the case back to the Tribunal, The assessee will have an opportunity of proving

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

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

The appeal is allowed

7 of 26 under the head capital gains. The amount of tax sought to be evaded is worked out as per clause (a) to Explanation 4 to Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act at 20% of Rs.3,43,90,478 i.e. Rs.68,78,095. Accordingly, a minimum penalty of Rs.68,78,095 is levied under Section 271(1

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

7 years. It was not a right in rem. Adverting to the expression ‘similar business or commercial rights’ appearing in Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, Delhi High Court opined that it has to necessarily result in an intangible asset against the entire world to qualify for depreciation under the said provision. Delhi High Court therefore dismissed the appeal

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS PVT.LTD

The appeal is allowed without

7. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the distinction between the position as under Section 143(1) of the Act vis-a-vis under Section 143(3) of the Act has been completely lost sight of by the High Court. Adani\022s case (supra) related to a case under Section 143(3) of the Act. 8. Learned counsel

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

1), Thiruvananthapuram   vide   order   of   assessment   dated   28.12.2017. Debits contained in the Profit & Loss Account of the appellant with respect to payment of gallonage fee, licence fee, shop rental (kist) and surcharge   on   sales   tax,   amounting   to   a   total   sum   of Rs.811,90,88,115/­ were disallowed under Section 40(a)(iib) of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order

LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,BOMBAY vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY

The appeal is allowed

Disallowance of the balance of the tax refund was quite in order because they did not come out of the assets which were included in the surplus of the earlier inter valuation period." The above-quoted question was referred to the High- Court for its decision at the instance of the assessee Corporation, under Section 256(1) of the Income