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

9 "29. In the facts of the present case, the issue canvassed is on the interpretation of Section 143 (1D) of the Act. It is first necessary to refer to the statutory provisions and thereafter consider the effect of such provisions on Vodafone's request for refund for the said assessment years. On reading of the Section

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

disallowed under Section 43-B which, as stated above, was inserted with effect from 1-4-1984 *** 22. It is important to note once again that, by the Finance Act, 2003, not only is the second proviso deleted but even the first proviso is sought to be amended by bringing about a uniformity in tax, duty, cess

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

disallowance of the deduction under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, end up paying tax of a huge amount, way beyond the commission, resulting in extreme financial hardship. Thus, if section 195 of the Income Tax Act could be construed in a manner so as to avoid such a result, this must be done. Further, he relied

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

9 SCC 1 Civil Appeal No.2948 of 2023 etc. Page 20 of 91 would ordinarily interpret the provisions in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Reliance was placed on this behalf in the case of Sneh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi23 and Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal 1, Calcutta v. M/s Vegetables Products Ltd.24

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

SHITAL FIBERS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

1)(a) and a statutory notice under Section 148 of the IT Act was served upon the appellant. Based on the judgment dated 17th July, 2008 of the jurisdictional ITAT, in 2 (2007) SCC OnLine ITAT 159 Civil Appeal No.14318 of 2015 etc. Page 2 of 20 ITA Nos.320 and 321, Amritsar Bench in respect of appellant’s case

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

9 In rejoinder, it has been submitted on behalf of the appellant(s) /assessee(s) that even if “Provision for NPA” is treated to be in the nature of a reserve still it will not convert a statutory debit in the P&L Account or a statutory charge in the said Account as “real income”. It is contended that under

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

The appeals are allowed in the above

9 of 39 refunded together with the amount of income tax refundable but that a similar provision was not found in Section 214. The learned Judge pointed out, "the express enactment of this provision points it to the conclusion that in its absence, the computation of the interest would ordinarily have to be made by reference to the date

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S WOODWARD GOVERNOR INDIA P. LTD

disallowed the deduction/debit. This fact is important. It indicates the double standards adopted by the Department. 11. The dispute in this batch of civil appeals centers around the year(s) in which deduction would be admissible for the increased liability under Section 37(1). 12. We quote hereinbelow Section 28(i), Section 29 Section 37(1) and Section

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

9. This appeal is by the revenue. Respondent is the assessee, details of which have already been mentioned in the previous appeal. 9.1. For the assessment year 2002-03, respondent filed its return of income on 31.10.2001 declaring net loss of Rs. 37,12,20,853.00. Initially the return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act but subsequently

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

The appeal is allowed without

9. In order to consider the rival submissions, it is necessary to take note of Section 143(1) (as it stood before and after amendment with effect from June 1, 1999), 147 and 148. The provisions read as follows: After amendment: \023143. Assessment- (1) Where a return has been made under section 139, or in response to a notice under

ASST. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS vs. THANTHI TRUST

1 of 9 CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 4406-4410 of 1996 Appeal (civil) 4759-4761 of 1998 Appeal (civil) 4395-4402 of 1996 Appeal (civil) 497-499 of 2000 Appeal (civil) 5772 of 2000 PETITIONER: THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS ETC. ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: THANTHI TRUST ETC. ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31/01/2001 BENCH: S.P. Bharucha, N. Santosh Hegde

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA MILLS

The appeal is dismissed

section 34(1) when a claim is made for depreciation. Now, merely because the form of the return provides for a place where the statement of such particulars should be set out does not mean that in the absence of such statement the Income-tax Officer has no power to allow the depreciation. A deduction by way of depreciation

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

The appeal is allowed

9 of 26 of the Appellant, would contend that the First Respondent in the order of assessment, did not record his satisfaction that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars which were conditions precedent for initiating penalty proceeding under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The show cause notice also was issued

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 6 vs. KHYATI REALTORS PVT. LTD

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

disallowed by Explanation to Section 36(1)(vii), if claimed, has got to be added back to the total income of the assessee because the said Act seeks to tax the “real income” which is income computed according to ordinary commercial principles but subject to the provisions of the IT Act. Under Section 36(1)(vii) read with the Explanation

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

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

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