COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) DELHI vs. HARPRASAD & CO. (P) LTD

In the result, the appeal is accepted with costs

disallowed the loss on the ground that it was a loss of capital nature. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, in appeal, held that the assessee’s claim was exaggerated, that the actual loss was only Rs. 28,662/- and agreed with the Income-tax Officer that the loss was not a revenue loss but a capital loss. Before the Tribunal

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,MYSORETRAVANCORE-COCHIN AND vs. THE INDO MERCANTILE BANK, LIMITED(and connected appeal)

In the result the appeals fail and are dismissed with costs

loss shall not be set off except against profits or gains accruing or arising within British India or in an Indian State and exempt from tax under the said provisions ". (Sections in brackets are the corresponding sections of the Indian Act). So the only difference between the two sections is that in the proviso

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

Appeals are dismissed

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

loss to be set off against the income under the head “business” and disallowed it under the income under   the   head

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JAIPUR vs. PRAKASH CHAND LUNIA (D) THR LRS

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

set off the loss which presupposes that the loss has to be treated as a facet of expenditure. 17. A little bit of interplay between Section 115BBE and Section 37(1) of the Act might throw more light on both the provisions. If a loss in pursuance to an offence or prohibited business cannot be brought under Section 115BBE

WESTERN STATES TRADING CO LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CALCUTTA

In the result the appeals are allowed with costs in this

set off this income against the loss in business for earlier years brought forward, was disallowed. The High Court, upon

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA MILLS

The appeal is dismissed

loss of the earlier years. Since the particulars were available as furnished along with the original return, the Income-tax Officer is bound to allow the deduction of depreciation in computing the income from business. The assessment made by the Income-tax Officer, in this case, is, therefore, correct and in accordance with law." High Court, therefore, answered the question

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CULCUTTA vs. KARAM CHAND THAPAR & BROS. (P) LTD

In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs

disallowed the loss claimed by the Respondent-assessee, on the sale of certain shares, to its allied concern, on the grounds that the sale price was much below the market quota- tion and that the motive behind the transactions was to set

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

setting off those losses against the income/profits from the business in India, still there is net-profit of the business, the benefit under Section 80HHC will be available? The second question would arise is as to whether formula applied by the fora below is correct? In other words, while applying the formula, we have to see what would comprise “total

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

disallowance of loss claimed, if return of the previous year for which set off of loss is claimed was furnished

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX 4 BENGALURU 2 vs. M/S JUPITER CAPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

setting aside the disallowance of capital loss claimed by the assessee of Rs.164,48,55,840/- by holding that there

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

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

loss. It is submitted that there was no claim for any deduction under Section 10B (1) at any time. 10 4.5 It is submitted that the incontrovertible position set out in paragraphs 4.2 to 4.4 above is the precise reason why these points were not even attempted to be raised, either before the ITAT or before the High Court

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, U.P. vs. NAINITAL BANK LTD

In the result, the order of the High Court is correct and

disallowed the claim on the ground that it was not a loss incidental to the banking business. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, and on further appeal, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, confirmed that finding. On a reference to the High Court of Judicature at Allababad, a Division Bench of that Court held that the loss

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS vs. R.M. CHIDAMBARAM PILLAI ETC

loss of revenue. Oftentimes. partners siphon off substantial profits in the guise of salaries and sO arrange such distribution of income via salaries that tax evasion becomes legally protected. To pre-empt such possibility the law has gone out of its way to exclude manipulation by including salaries as profits. This special provision cannot alter the nature of salaries

KERALA STATE BEVERAGES MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING CORPORATION LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1)

Accordingly, the civil appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

set aside order of assessment on the ground that same is erroneous and is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, to the extent it failed to disallow the debits made in the Profit &   Loss

K. vs. . A. L. M. RAMANATHAN CHETTIAR BY L.RS. VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS

In the result the appeals are allowed with costs here and in

loss in India must first be set off wholly against the business profits earned in Malaya and the fact that this results in application of s. 24(1) does not take away the necessity for the limitation. But before us the learned advocate for the Revenue conceded that neither s.24 is applicable nor would it be necessary to submit that

SHAH ORIGINALS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 24 MUMBAI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI

setting aside the disallowance of gain earned from foreign exchange fluctuations by the assessee without recording findings on crucial matters in issue. 3.1 It is argued that sub-section (1) of Section 80 HHC allows the deduction of profits of business derived from exports of goods/merchandise outside India. Sub-section (1) of Section 80 HHC is appreciated by also applying

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