COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KARNAL vs. M/S CARPET INDIA.PANIPAT(HARYANA)

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL

Section 80HHC of the IT Act which was partly disallowed by the Assessing Officer and deduction was allowed only to the tune of Rs 1,08,96

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

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

SHITAL FIBERS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

96 Civil Appeal No.14318 of 2015 etc. Page 1 of 20 Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date: 2025.05.20 19:16:18 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified that some of the appeals in the group have been disposed of by the Order dated 01st August, 2024 due to low tax effect. FACTUAL ASPECT 3. We are referring to the facts

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

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

96,040.00 for the above three assessment years as quantified by the assessing officer, CIT(A) enhanced and redetermined such income at Rs.68,20,854.00. 16.3. However, it would be relevant to mention that CIT(A) in the appellate order had noted that the assessee had filed its balance sheet as on 31.12.1985 while filing the return of income

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPURC vs. M/S RAGHUVAR (INDIA) LTD

96) ELT 241 (Bom. High Court)]; Collr. of C. Ex., Patna vs Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. [1999 (111) ELT 9 (Pat. High Court)]; J.K. Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. & Another vs Union of India & Others [1987 (32) ELT 234 (SC)] and Govt. of India vs Citedal Fine Pharmaceuticals Madras & Others Etc. Etc. [1989 (3) SCR 465]; and vehemently contended that

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

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

M/S. PUROLATOR INDIA LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-III

Appeal is disposed of accordingly

96,601/- towards duty computed for the period of March 97 to March, 2001 on Sales Tax deduction and (d) Rs. 4,99,117/- towards duty on cash discount for the period of July 2000 to March, 2001 (ii) confirm that the interest in terms of provisions of Section 11AB ibid is payable by the assessee on the amounts

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

NATIONAL CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V, DELHI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL

disallowed the same as a deduction. What weighed with the AO was also the fact that the grants received from the Central Government were in the nature of a capital receipt exempt from tax. The AO noted that no deduction as sought for has been claimed in the previous assessment years. Of course, subsequently, the stand of the appellant-Corporation

COMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. VIKRAM DETERGENT LTD

The appeals are allowed to the extent of disallowing

disallowed this respondent’s claim for discount of damaged goods and bank charges relying on the decision of this Court in Government of India v. MRF, (1995) 77 ELT 433. The respondent challenged the decision before, the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal. Both the orders of the Tribunal are now the subject matter of challenge before us. ’The issues

COMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. VIKRAM DETERGENT LTD

The appeals are allowed to

disallowed this respondents claim for discount of damaged goods and bank charges relying on the http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4 decision of this Court in Government of India V. MRF 1995 (77) ELT 433. The respondent challenged the decision before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal. Both the orders of the Tribunal