MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS MARUTI UDYOG LTD.) vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN

Section 43B in respect of unutilised MODVAT credit. 31. Now coming  to  the  second  question  i.e.  with regard   to   disallowance   of   Rs.3,08,79

M/S APEX LABORATORIES P. LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT II

The appeal is dismissed without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

disallowing expenses on unethical activities.” (emphasis supplied) Interestingly, a similar conclusion was arrived at by the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, in a report called Savings Available Under Full Generic Substitution 26 45th Report on Issues Relating to Availability of Generic, Generic-Branded and Branded Medicines, their Formulation

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

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 vs. M/S. DISTILLERS CO. LTD

The appeal is dismissed with costs

disallowed u/s 43 of the Act? Relying upon a decision of the said Court in Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. v. State of Karnataka passed in Writ Petition No. 5008 of 1991 disposed of on 5th September, 1991, the High Court held: (i) The amount in question was not a penalty; (ii) It was also not to be treated either

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

section 30 of the Copyright Act, which transfers an interest in all or any of the rights contained in sections 14(a) and 14(b) of the Copyright Act, but is a “licence” which imposes restrictions or conditions for the use of computer software. Thus, it cannot be said that any of the EULAs that we are concerned with

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 11 (1) BANGALORE vs. M/S ACE MULTI AXES SYSTEMS LTD

Appeals are disposed of in the same terms

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL

79,82,653/-. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax, interfered with the assessment under Section 263 to the extent it allowed deduction under Section 80 IB(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and directed fresh decision on the said issue vide order dated 16th January, 2009. Thereafter, the Assessing authority on 14th December, 2009 disallowed

UDAIPUR SAHKARI UPBOKTA THOK BHANDER LD. vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX

disallowed the claim on the ground that the appellant-society is a wholesaler of foodgrains and it is not a mere stockist as claimed and consequently it was not entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(e) of the 1961 Act. This order was applied for assessment years in question. Aggrieved by the assessment order(s), appellant filed appeals before

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD

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

disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessees holding that they did not engage in the production or manufacture activity because of the reason that LPG was produced and manufactured in refineries and thereafter there was no change in the chemical composition or other properties of the Gas in the activity of filling the cylinder. This view was affirmed by Commissioner

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,MYSORETRAVANCORE-COCHIN AND vs. THE INDO MERCANTILE BANK, LIMITED(and connected appeal)

In the result the appeals fail and are dismissed with costs

79,275 a loss of the assessee arising outside the Travancore State for purpose of the first proviso to section 32(1) of the Travancore Income-tax Act ? " This question was slightly modified by the High Court 260 which after referring to several decided cases answered the question in favour of the assessee. In C. A. 260/58 the assessee

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

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. WATERFALL ESTATES LTD.MADRAS vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TAMIL NADU I, MADRAS

79 I.T.R. 589] and B.R. Ltd. v. V.P.Gupta, Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay [(1978) 113 I.T.R. 647]. All the decisions were rendered with reference to Section 24(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922. The question in all these cases was whether the business continued by the assessee in the relevant assessment years is the very same business wherein

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX BOMBAY vs. MAHARASHTRA SUGAR MILLS LTD. BOMBAY

In the result this appeal fails and the same is dismissed

79, followed. http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8 S.A.S.S. Chellappa Chettiar v. C.I.T, Madras, 5 I.T.R., 97 and Salt & Industries Agencies Ltd. Bombay v. C.LT., Bombay City, 18 I.T.R. 58, referred to. (2) Rule 23 of the rules framed under the Income-tax Act says that in computing the taxable income of a business the agricultural

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, WEST BENGAL,CALCUTTA vs. GUNGADHAR BANERJEE AND CO. (P) LTD

In the result we hold that the order of the High Court is

disallow many expenses actually incurred by the assessee; and in computing his income he may include many items on notional basis. But the commercial or accounting profits are the actual profits earned by an assessee calculated on commercial principles. [445F-H.] Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City v. Bipinchandra Maganlal and Co. Ltd. (1961)41 I.T.R. 296, followed

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) 2 vs. M/S MAHAGUN REALTORS (P) LTD

The appeal is allowed, in the above terms, without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

disallowed in the subsequent year, in the case of the then transferee company. The decision of the Delhi High Court, in Spice (supra), after discussing the decision in Saraswati Syndicate, went on to explain why assessing an amalgamating company, without framing the order in the name of the transferee company is fatal: “10. Section 481 of the Companies Act provides

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/s. McMILLAN & CO

Section 31 (3) does not in terms say that the power to vary the assessment including the power to enhance it is subject to ally limitation. We have so far dealt with the questions at issue untrammelled by any authorities. We now turn to such authorities as have been placed before us. We take up first the decision