THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY

8 of 22 investment made and therefore the interest paid by the assessee on its deposits and other borrowings, should not be considered to be expenditure incurred in relation to tax free income on bonds and shares and as a corollary, there should be no disallowance under Section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. CORE HEALTH CARE LTD

disallowance of http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6 Rs.1,56,76,000/- in respect of borrowings utilized for purchase of machinery. This decision was confirmed by the High Court, hence these civil appeals are filed by the Department. 4. The following question of law has been placed before us for determination: "Whether interest paid in respect

SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

8 found that the appellant had, for its convenience and to avoid the rigour of Section 40A(3) of the Act, chose to split the payments into two parts but the entries of such split payments were available consecutively in the cash book. Thus, while not accepting such methodology, the CIT(A) observed that even in the split payments

SHAH ORIGINALS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 24 MUMBAI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI

8 iii. The exchange fluctuation is incidentally attributable to the business of the assessee, and necessarily, the deduction under Section 80 HHC is available. iv. The computation of business income is correctly carried out by the assessee by applying Clause (baa) of Section 80 HHC. v. A combined reading of sub-sections (1) and (3) applies to Section

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

disallowed the claim for deduction under Section 40(b)(iv) saying that in this case there was diversion of funds by raising of interest free loans. The AO did not accept the submission of the assessee that advance(s) made by the assessee were out of income of the firm. According to the AO, the said interest free advances

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

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

Appeal is allowed and the

disallowed the claim of the respondent assessee. 5. The respondent assessee aggrieved by the said http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 16 order preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The appeal filed by the respondent assessee was allowed on the ground that the respondent assessee was a small scale industrial unit

.M. SALGAOCAR & BORS. VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly Civil Appeal No. 657 of 1994 is allowed and Civil Appeal Nos

disallowance of the expenditure relating to the above assets under Section 40(c) of the Act on the ground that the expenditure was excessive and unreasonable having regard to the legiti-mate business needs of the company. In the case of the assessee the Income-tax Officer took into account the possible extent of the use of the company

BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX

8 of 9 India Viscose Ltd., reportesd in (2003) 259 ITR 107. Based on such distinction, it was held that rent paid for a guest house has been specifically dealt with in Section 30 and could not, therefore, be disallowed

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

8. A circular7 had explained the rationale for introduction of Section 43B: "Disallowance of unpaid statutory liability - Section 43B *** 35.2 Several

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

The appeal is disposed of as above and the matter is

8 of 14 invalid. 6. We shall now consider question No. 2 as to whether the Revenue could contend or defend the reassessments for the years 1954-55, 1955-56 and 1956-57 as validity made under Section 34(1)(b) of the Act? The High Court has held on question No. 2 that re- assessments of the appellant-company

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JAIPUR vs. PRAKASH CHAND LUNIA (D) THR LRS

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

disallowable under Explanation 1 to Section 37(1). It is submitted that thus either way, neither can the Respondent- Assessee claim business loss due to him not being in the smuggling business nor can he claim business expenditure as the same is prohibited under Explanation 1 to Section 37(1). 3.6 Making above submissions and relying upon the above submissions

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

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

8 C. Submissions on behalf of the appellant .................................. 9 D. Submissions on behalf of the respondents ........................... 14 E. Issue to be determined ........................................................ 19 F. Analysis .............................................................................. 20 (i) Basic Principles of Interpretation .................................................. 21 (ii) Interpreting Section 44C of the Act, 1961 ..................................... 28 (iii) Whether the principle of law barring exclusive expenditure under Section 44C is approved by this Court

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

8. While   it   is   the   case   of   the   assessee/appellant   that   the gallonage fees, licence fee and shop rental (kist) for FL­9 licence and FL­ 1 licence, the surcharge on sales tax and turnover tax do not fall within the purview of the abovesaid amended Section, the case of the revenue is that all the aforesaid amounts are covered under Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KOLKATA XII vs. M/S CALCUTTA EXPORT COMPANY

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL

8 2) The present appeal has been filed against the impugned final judgment and order dated 03.09.2012 passed by the High Court at Calcutta in GA No. 2029 of 2012 ITAT No. 175 of 2012 whereby a Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant against the order dated 29.02.2012 passed by the Income

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. 6 vs. M/S I VEN INTERACTIVE LTD

Appeal is Allowed

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

Section 143(3) of the 1961 Act by making disallowance of Rs. 8,91,17,643/­ under Section 14A of the 1961 Act, read

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

THE CITIZEN COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR G.RANGA RAO. HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed reportable

disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 80P of the Act is concerned, the CIT(A) rejected the claim for deduction thereby upholding the order of the Assessing Officer. While doing so, the CIT(A) 7 followed the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in the case of the appellant itself in respect of Assessment Years