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

disallowance of ITC on goods and services used in the construction of buildings could be a logical corollary only if the buildings were intended to be sold as stock by the developer instead of being further used for providing taxable goods or services. There is no contradiction in promoting ITC on goods and services used for the construction of buildings

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

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

disallowed i.e. Rs. 10,28,462.00, Rs. 57,51,520.00 and Rs. 1,15,000.00. He concluded that by adding these figures the total amount of Rs. 68,94,982.00 was the income in respect of which inaccurate particulars had been furnished. The tax was computed at Rs. 31,71,692.00. It was held that the tax sought

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

1. GRANT OF LICENSE: This EULA grants you the following rights: a. Systems Software - You may install and use one copy of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on a single computer, including a workstation, terminal, or other digital electronic device (“COMPUTER”). You may permit a maximum of five (5) COMPUTERS to connect to the single COMPUTER running the SOFTWARE PRODUCT solely

SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

disallowed by the Ld. AO. The Ld. AO rightly invoked the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Therefore, on the given facts as also in law, the ground of appeal fails.” 10 Before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench 7. Aggrieved again, the appellant approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench7 in further appeal, being

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

Appeal is dismissed,

1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) in favour of the respondent. The facts as found by the Tribunal are that the appellant was manufacturing coustic soda utilising billiter cells and up to the year 1956, its production capacity was 13.5 tons per day. The appellant felt the need to expand its capacity

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S JINDAL STEEL THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

Appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

84,76,505 units by Rs.1.40 per unit (Rs.3.72 – Rs.2.32) was justified and hence confirmed the reduction of deduction under Section 80 IA. 9. Assailing the order of CIT (A), assessee preferred further appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench – I, Delhi (briefly ‘the Tribunal’ hereinafter) which was registered as ITA No.3485/Delhi/05 for the assessment year

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUJARAT vs. CELLULOSE PRODUCTS OF INDIA LTD

1, 1968 by Finance (No. 2) Act, 1967). The Income Tax Officer took the view that since the respondent had started production of Cellu- lose pulp from March 18, 1961 it had begun to manufacture or produce finished articles or goods in the year ending on March 31, 1961 and consequently the assessment year 1961-62 was the first year

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

IPCA LABORATORY LTD. vs. DY. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

disallowed the deduction of Rs. 3.78 crores. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the Appeal filed by the Appellants on 11th October, 1999. On 29th December, 2000 the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Second Appeal. By the impugned Judgment the Bombay High Court has dismissed the Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. The question for consideration

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) DELHI vs. HARPRASAD & CO. (P) LTD

In the result, the appeal is accepted with costs

sections (2A) and (2B) in s. 24 of the Income-tax Act. As a result of the Indian Finance Act, 1949 which restricted the operation of s. 12B to capital gains arising before April 1, 1948, and the Finance (No. 3) Act, of 1956 which restored tax on capital gains with effect from April 1, 1948 capital gains arising from

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

1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ’the Act’) The brief facts necessary to decide this appeal are as under: On 26th February, 1993 the appellant filed its return for assessment year 1992-93 and followed it up with a revised return. The Assessing Officer made an order dated 27th March, 1995 under Section

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, COIMBATORE vs. M/S. TEXTOOL CO. LTD

The appeal is dismissed with no order

disallowed on the ground that payment towards the gratuity fund was made by the assessee directly to the LIC and not to an approved gratuity fund and, therefore, it was not allowable under Section 36(1)(v) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner observed that the initial payment

THE COMMNR.OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. M/S.SARAVANA SPINNING MILLS PVT. LTD

Appeals stand allowed with no order as to costs

84,047.00 as deduction under the same head. The question which arises for determination in this case is whether the assessee was entitled to claim the aforestated amounts as "current repairs" under Section 31(i). This is the basic controversy in the above civil appeals. To complete the chronology of events, it may be stated that the assessee claimed

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. VANAZ ENGINEERING PVT.LTD

The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the High Court

Sections 22, 29 and 40A(7)(b)(ii) - Gratuity - Scheme introduced for first time in assessee firm in 1970 - On basis of Actuarial Report total liability as on December 31, 1970 debited to Profit and Loss Account Assessment proceedings - Income Tax Officer disallowing burden of liability - Appellate Assistant Commissioner and Tribunal allowing that liability - Appeal by Revenue to Supreme Court

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

84,71,384/- is directed to be allowed u/s 43B of the I.T. Act.” 5. This order was upheld in appeal by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [“ITAT”]. The ITAT held: “9. … The Section was introduced to curb the mischief of withholding tax payment by the assessee, while at the same time claiming deduction thereof in the income-tax assessments