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

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

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

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

JT.COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,SURAT vs. SAHELI LEASING & INDUSTRIES LTD

Appeals stand allowed as mentioned hereinabove but with

set at rest the legal controversy involved in the appeal. It is further so that Division Bench in the impugned order has decided the question of law as projected before it in the appeal preferred under Section 260 (A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in a most casual manner. The order

PRIDE FORAMER S.A. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

loss against income under any other head subject to the conditions provided in Section 71 of the Act. 10. Section 32(2) provides unabsorbed depreciation allowance of a previous year may be carried forward and set off against income of the following assessment years in the manner and subject to the conditions provided therein. The first proviso to the said

M/S GANAPATHY & CO.BANGALORE vs. COMMR.INCOME TAX,BANGALORE

The appeal is dismissed

set out as below. “i. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in deleting the disallowance of service charges paid to M/s Universal Trading Company made under Section 40A(2)? ii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified

M/S DALMIA POWER LTD. vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA

losses   in   the   current   year,   to   be   carried   forward, amounting to Rs.1105,93,91,494/­. 2.8 The Appellants submit that the revised Returns were filed after the due date for filing revised Returns of Income   u/S.   139(5)   for   the   Assessment   Year   2016­ 2017   since   the   NCLT   passed   the   final   Order   on 01.05.2018. Consequentially, it was an impossibility to file

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

C0MMNR. OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI vs. ORIENTAL FIRE & GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD

Bench: The Controller Of Insurance.

disallowing certain expenditure was set aside by orders dated 09.02.1979 and 09.09.1980. 4. Both the orders were questioned by the Revenue before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, ’the Tribunal). By reason of an order dated 30.11.1981, the Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not correct in refusing to accede to the deductions under the aforementioned heads claimed

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

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

loss   of Rs.69,92,67,527/­.   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

SHITAL FIBERS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

disallowed. 7. The appeal preferred by the appellant against the said Order was dismissed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). In appeal preferred by the appellant before the ITAT, the appellant was unsuccessful. Thereafter, an appeal was 3 304 ITR 319 Civil Appeal No.14318 of 2015 etc. Page 3 of 20 preferred before the Punjab and Haryana High Court which

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. VANAZ ENGINEERING PVT.LTD

The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the High Court

disallowing burden of liability - Appellate Assistant Commissioner and Tribunal allowing that liability - Appeal by Revenue to Supreme Court Whether assessee entitled to deduction of entire amount - Held question arises - Matter remanded to High Court for fresh consideration. HEADNOTE: The respondent-firm (assessee) had no gratuity scheme for the years preceding the calendar year 1970, but such a scheme was formulated