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

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

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 income. According to the appellant, the purpose behind prescribing RBI Directions 1998 is to ensure that members of the public and shareholders of the company obtain a true picture of the financial health

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

70, Bureau of Indian Standards v. DGIT(E)71 and GS1 India v. DGIT(E)72. 66. Mr. Ajay Vohra, learned senior counsel, appearing for the Apparel Export Promotion Council (AEPC) urged that it is a non-profit organization set up with approval of the Central Government, for promotion of exports of garments from India (i.e., promotion of trade

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

SHITAL FIBERS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

disallowed. 7. The appeal preferred by the appellant against the said Order was dismissed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). In appeal preferred by the appellant before the ITAT, the appellant was unsuccessful. Thereafter, an appeal was 3 304 ITR 319 Civil Appeal No.14318 of 2015 etc. Page 3 of 20 preferred before the Punjab and Haryana High Court which

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

NARENDRAKUMAR J. MODI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUJARAT II,AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed with

disallowed the 114 claim under section 25A of the Income-tax Act, 1922. It is asserted that in the year 1961 a suit for partition had also been filed and the City Civil Court Ahmedabad passed a decree for partition on June 30, 1965. In an appeal filed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner from the order of the Income

M/S.SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDAL LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE &CUSTOMS

disallowing the claim was not proper and accordingly it was set aside. Regarding the claim being barred by limitation, it was observed that since the sugar year was over on September 30, 1976, the claim was required to be submitted within six months. But the claim was submitted on 14th August, 1978, and hence, it was barred by limitation

M/S. SARAF EXPORTS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR - III

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

70,197/- on account of DEPB and of Rs. 76,27,636/- on account of receipts under the Duty Drawback. 2.2 The assessee credited the receipts of the aforesaid amounts into the Profit & Loss Account and claimed the same as “Profit / gains of business / profession” under Sections 28(iiic) and 28(iiib) of the Act, 1961. The assessee was issued

M/S. SIDDACHALAM EXPORTS PRIVATE LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE DELHI-III

The appeal is allowed; the

disallowed on the ground of mis-declaration of value of the goods entered for exportation. 2. The facts, material for adjudication of the present appeal, may be stated thus: The appellant viz. M/s Siddachalam Exports Pvt. Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as “the exporter”) was engaged in the exports of ready-made garments, engineering goods, handicrafts, woollen garments, leather goods

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

The appeal is allowed without

70,85,105/-. The said return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the \021Act\022) accepting the loss returned by the respondent. Notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on the ground that claim of bad debts as expenditure was not acceptable. On 12th May, 2004 a return of income

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

70 “6. BACKUP COPY- After installation of one copy of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT pursuant to this EULA, you may keep the original media on which the SOFTWARE PRODUCT was provided by Microsoft solely for backup or archival purposes. If the original media is required to use the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on the COMPUTER, you may make one copy of the SOFTWARE

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

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. M/S. GENERAL INSURANCE CORPN.OF INDIA

Disallowance of Rs. 1,04,28,500/- in respect of stamp duty and registration fees incurred in connection with the increase in the authorized share capital were bifurcated by the CIT (Appeals) into two categories, one relating to the increase in authorized share capital from Rs. 75 crores to Rs. 250 crores and second relating to issue of bonus shares

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

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

70,317/- on written down value of assets instead of 75% depreciation. Under the unamended Section 32(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the assessee was entitled to claim 100% depreciation. However, after the amendment the depreciation could only be 75%. The assessee supported the returns with provisional revenue account, balance sheet as on 31.03.1991, details of gross fixed

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COIMBATORE vs. M/S. LAKSHMI MACHINE WORKS

70,000) Profit of the foreign branch Profit of the business (-) 5,85,000 (-) 2,43,000 (-) 80,000 86,680 2. Export turnover \026 It is Rs.24,90,000 being the brought to India (within the time limit), in the convertible foreign exchange. 3. Total turnover \026 It is Rs.30,50,000. 4. Export incentive \026 Export incentive

M.M. AQUA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI - III

Appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

70 per Kapadia, C.J. and para 333, 334 per Radhakrishnan, J. 25. The High Court judgment dated 18th May, 2015, is clearly in error in concluding that ‘interest’, on the facts of this case, has been converted into a loan. There is no basis for this finding - as a matter of fact, it is directly contrary to the finding