COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 MUMBAI vs. M/S. ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGER

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

92,67,527/­.   A notice under Section 143(2) was issued to the assessee.  The Assessing Officer vide its order dated 27.03.2006 held that during the year under consideration, the assessee   company   was   in   receipt   of   both   taxable   and non­taxable   dividend   income.     Accordingly,   the   dividend   on investment exempt under Section 10(23G) was considered by the A.O.   for   the   purpose

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

92 CD of the Act was filed by the appellant on 22.02.2017 for AY 2014-15. C] For AY 2016-17, the appellant filed ITR on 30.11.2016 claiming refund of Rs.1128.47 Crores. A notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the appellant on 03.07.2017 for AY 2016-17. D] For AY 2017-18, ITR was filed

NATIONAL PETROLEUM CONSTRUCTION COMPANY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(2) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION NEW DELHI

Appeal is hereby allowed to the extent

Bench: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE

92 of IT Act as the case may be. As the present case relates to quashment of the TDS certificate dated 26.06.2019   and   seeking   relief   to   issue   the   fresh   certificate under Section 197, therefore, for ready reference, it is hereby reproduced as thus: 197. Certificate for deduction at lower rate. (1) Subject to rules made under sub-section (2A), where

HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD. vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,DELHI

The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs

92 details of amount disallowable under Rule 6D were furnished before CIT(A) but the same were not admitted. These very papers were filed at pages 5 to 26 of paper book filed before this Hon’ble Tribunal. Papers at page 5 to 7 which included working details of disallowance under Rule 6D were filed before Assessing Officer. Similarly papers

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

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(CENTRAL) vs. M/S. GWALIOR RAYON SILK MFG.(WVG.)CO.LTD

The appeal is partly allowed

disallowed the aforesaid claims, the assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who dismissed the appeals. On further appeal the Tribunal allowed the claims and depreciation on the roads as well as development rebate in regard to the transport viz., tractor, trailer etc. The Revenue filed an application under Section 256(1) of the Income

MANSAROVAR COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI

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

disallowed). Separate penalty proceedings were initiated under sections 271(1)(a). 271(1)(c), 273/274 and 271-B of the Act. 2.12 The assessees then preferred appeals before the CIT(A). Subsequently on 08th December, 2000, the writ petitions filed by the assessees came to be dismissed by the High Court as the respective assessees moved the Appellate Authority prescribed

M/S. ROTORK CONTROLA INDIA (P) LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed in favour of the assessee with no order as to

Section 37 of the 1961 Act in respect of provision for warranty amounting to Rs.5,18,554. At this stage one point needs to be emphasized. During the assessment year 1983- 4 84 to assessment year 1991-92 there was one instance when the Tribunal disallowed the warranty claim that was in the assessment year 1985-86. The reason

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

The appeal is dismissed with no order

92,06,978/- as contribution/provision towards the approved gratuity fund. As per the breakup of the said amount, an amount of Rs.5,84,754/- was paid as annual premium to the Life Insurance Corporation(“LIC” for short); a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- was paid to the LIC as initial contribution in the group Life Assurance Scheme framed

M/S. MANGALAM PUBLICATIONS, KOTTAYAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM

Bench: This Court & On Leave Being Granted, Civil Appeals Have Been Registered. 3.

disallowances. He submits that for the assessment year 1993–1994, the appellant had maintained complete set of books of account, audited profit and loss account and balance sheet which were duly filed before the assessing officer. Following assessment proceedings, assessing officer passed the assessment order for the assessment year 1993 – 1994 on 27.01.1994 under Section

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

The appeal is allowed

92,907 as on 01.04.1981. In view of the said order of assessment, a show cause notice under Section 274 read with Section 271 of the Act was served to which a reply was filed by the Appellant on or about 14.08.2000 claiming that there was no http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 26 concealment of income

THE BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are dismissed

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

92,000.00. The difference was of Rs. 8,000.00. The assessee has revalued the security. The assessee offered the notional profit for taxation, as explained herein above, on accrual basis in the appropriate assessment year during which   the   assessee   held   the   security.   This difference   could   have   been   treated   by   the department as interest on securities under section 18. However

M/S.SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDAL LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE &CUSTOMS

Section 11B of the Act as it was filed after six months. He also held that for an amount of Rs.1,348.80 http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9 ps., the claimant was not entitled as the claim related to 48 kgs. of sugar which was re-processed sugar and hence not permissible. Regarding the amount

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COIMBATORE vs. M/S. LAKSHMI MACHINE WORKS

92. Since this amount pertains to the previous year 1991-92, it has not been debited to the aforesaid profit and loss account. 3. The company has received Rs.24,90,000 in convertible foreign exchange till September 30, 1993. The company’s application for obtaining extension of time under section 80HHC has been rejected by the Commissioner. 4. During

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MUSSADILAL RAM BHAROSE

92% of the sales at Rs.7,60,000 i.e. at Rs.6,99,200 which covered all the ex- penses and purchases found reasonable. The Inspecting As- sistant Commissioner was, therefore, of the opinion that the assessee firm was grossly negligent and had not discharged the onus of proving that the said difference between the income returned and the correct come

BASIR AHMED SISODIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal is allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR

Disallowed deduction U/s.24(1)  as per discussion  7200/­ 2. Additions in gross profit  10000/­ 3. Additions on the basis of less  Household expenses withdrawals 18000/­ 4. Unexplained credits as per discussions  226000/­  261200/­ Total taxable Income Tax          348700/­ Assessment was made. Necessary forms were issued. Notice be issued separately for imposition of penalty under Section 272(1)(c).” 3. Aggrieved

SIR SHADI LAL AND SONS, SHAMLI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KANPUR

In the result, for the foregoing reasons these

disallowed in the original-assessment could be re-agitated by the assessee. The High Court has answered this proposition against the assessee. We may take up and dispose of this contention first. It is seen from the order of the Tribunal that though certain reliefs were claimed by the assessee before the authorities, the matter before the Tribunal was, however