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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

9(1)(vi). Further, he referred to Circular No. 10/2002 dated 09.10.2002 by the Central Board of Direct Taxes [“CBDT”] in which “remittance for royalties” and “remittance for supply of articles or…computer software” were addressed as separate and distinct payments, the former attracting the “royalty” provision under Article 12 of the DTAA, and the latter being taxable as business

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. These decisions were rendered in the context of the provisions then in existence which had following notable features:- (a) sub-section (1A) in terms of which, if any adjustments had resulted in increased total income, an additional income tax at the rate of 20 per cent on the difference would be levied. (b) the intimation to be sent under

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

VI: Declaration, Contribution Cards, and Returns 38. Mode of payment of contributions 6 Second proviso w.e.f. 1989. 6 “(1) The employer shall, before paying the member his wages in respect of any period or part of period for which contribution are payable, deduct the employee's contribution from his wages which together with his own contribution as well

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

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

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA MILLS

The appeal is dismissed

vi) reads thus: "Provided that the prescribed particulars have been duly furnished". In proceedings for the Assessment Year 1955-56, the Income-tax Officer held that depreciation must be computed as if income of the assessee had been worked out properly in the earlier years when it was exempted and depreciation had been allowed at the usual rates

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

vi) Accordingly, against the total amount of depreciation claimed at Rs. 1,47,97,994.00, an amount of Rs. 67,79,982.00 ( Rs. 57,51,520.00 + Rs. 10,28,462.00 = Rs. 67, 79, 982.00) was disallowed. (vii) Therefore, the depreciation allowable was Rs. 80,18,011.00 (Rs. 1

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 3 vs. ABHISAR BUILDWELL P. LTD

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

vi. Insofar as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment under Section 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made separately for each AY on the basis of the findings of the search and any other material existing or brought on the record of the AO. vii. Completed assessments

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

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

1, 1985. Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) issued Circular incorporating the objectives sought to be achieved by omission of clause (vi). It is Circular No. 421 dated June 12, 1985. Earlier CBDT had issued a Circular No 387 dated October 16, 1984 explaining the objectives in inserting new sub-clause (vi) in Section 17(2). It may also

JEYAR CONSULTANT & INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,MADRAS

VI-A. Section 80-HHC would thus be governed by Section 80-AB which makes it clear that the computation of income has to be in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Moreover, even under Section 80-HHC(3) (c)(i) the profit is to be adjusted profit of business which means a profit as reduced by the profit

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III, BANGALORE vs. M/S WIPRO LIMITED

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

9 4.3 It is further submitted that though it was not necessary for the exercise of option under Section 10B (8) of the IT Act, the assessee filed a revised return only to bring to the notice of the AO the factum of exercise of option under Section 10B. Even if the revised return had not been filed and instead

A.M. MOOSA vs. COMMNR OF INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM

disallowed the claim on the ground that the ’profits of the business’ computed under Section 80-HHC indicated a negative figure. An appeal was preferred before Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Cochin Bench, hereinafter, referred to as ’the CIT(A)’. The said appellate authority also was of the same view and dismissed the appeal. The assessee appellant preferred an appeal

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

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