BHUNA COOP. SUGAR MILLS LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK

95,63,045.72. While computing the said loss the appellant declared in its return a sum of Rs.1,48,38,263.88 as interest which had accrued for the relevant assessment year which was payable to the creditors and had been debited in the profit and loss account, hence, sought for its deduction. A return claiming similar losses were also filed

M/S APEX LABORATORIES P. LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT II

The appeal is dismissed without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

disallowing expenses on unethical activities.” (emphasis supplied) Interestingly, a similar conclusion was arrived at by the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, in a report called Savings Available Under Full Generic Substitution 26 45th Report on Issues Relating to Availability of Generic, Generic-Branded and Branded Medicines, their Formulation

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

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 vs. M/S JINDAL STEEL THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

Appeals are hereby dismissed

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

disallowance of depreciation made by the assessing officer. 38. On further appeal by the assessee before the Tribunal, vide the order dated 07.06.2007, the Tribunal on the basis of its previous decision in the case of the assessee itself for the assessment year 2000-2001 answered this question in favour of the assessee. 39. When the matter came up before

M/S. MADDI VENKATARAMAN & CO. (P) LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is dismissed

95,000/- is covered by sub-rule (J) of Rule 6-DD, framed under Section 40-A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?" 2. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of the Rs. 19.695/- incurred as quest-expenses is allowable as deduction?" The assessee, to start with, was a partnership consisting mostly

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

95. For the sake of convenience we hereby refer to the facts concerning assessment year 1991-92. 4. Appellant-company sells Valve Actuators. Bulk of the sales is to BHEL. At the time of sale appellant (assessee) provides a Standard Warranty whereby in the event of any Beacon Rotork Actuator or part thereof becoming defective within 12 months from

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

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

95,872.00 as against the loss of Rs.41,23,500.00 claimed by the assessee. Taking an overall view of the matter, the assessing officer estimated the business income of the assessee during the assessment year 1992-1993 at Rs.10,00,000.00 vide the assessment order dated 26.03.1993 passed under Section

CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THRISSUR

95,770/- as deduction on account of bad debts because the bad debts did not exceed the credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts account and also, the 3 requirements of clause (v) of Sub-section (2) of Section 36 of the Act were not satisfied. Therefore, the assessee’s claim for deduction of bad debts written

HERO CYCLES (P) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)

Appeal is allowed, thereby setting aside the order of the

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). The aforesaid deduction was disallowed by the Assessing Officer vide his Assesssment Order dated 26.03.1991 on the following two points: - (1) The assessee had advanced a sum of Rs.1,16,26,128/- to its subsidiary company known as M/s. Hero Fibers Limited and this advance

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MYSORE vs. M/S. TVS MOTORS COMPANY LTD

disallowed inclusion of PDI charges and free ASS charges in the assessable value by relying on the Custom Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) decision in the case of Maruti Udyog Limited v. CCE, Delhi-III1 and remanded the case to the Adjudicating Authority to re-examine the disputed issues in the light of settled legal positions and finalise

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

The appeals are allowed in the above

95,508/- in three equal instalments. An assessment was made (hereinafter referred to as the "Original Assessment Order") on March 30, 1948, according to which the assessee became liable to pay a further tax of Rs.6,00,000/- in addition to the advance tax amount already paid. He paid it and preferred an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against

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

The appeal is disposed of as above and the matter is

disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee-company. The appeals filed by the appellant- assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner were dismissed. The Appellate Tribunal held that the proceedings are invalid under Section 34(1)(a) of the Act for the years 1950-51 to 1956-57 and alternatively that the proceedings for re-assessment

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,CHENNAI vs. M/S ALAGENDRAN FINANCE LTD

disallowed and added to the income returned\005" The matter came up for consideration before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal wherein the contention of the respondent that the said purported proceedings under Section 263 of the Act were barred by limitation, found favour with, opining: "6. We have carefully gone through the record and considered the rival submissions

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

Appeals stand allowed with no order as to costs

95,755.00 whereas in the case of year ending 31.3.1994 it has claimed Rs. 77,84,047.00 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

MOHAN WAHI vs. COMMNR. INCOME TAX, VARANASI

The appeal stands allowed in

disallowed, the Tax Recovery Officer shall make an order confirming the sale and thereupon the sale shall become absolute. On a sale or immovable property becoming absolute, a sale certificate shall be issued under Rule 65. Under Section 224, an assessee cannot dispute the correctness of any certificate drawn up by the Tax Recovery Officer but it is lawful

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