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

Appeals are dismissed

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

termed as the interest for the broken period. When the interest becomes due after the purchase of the security by the Bank, interest for the entire period is paid to the purchaser Bank, including the broken period   interest.     Therefore,   in   effect,   the   purchaser   of securities gets interest from a date anterior to the date of acquisition till the date

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA

disallowances, relying heavily on the legislative intent and the definition of "long-term finance" in the Explanation to Section 36(1)(viii). This view was subsequently affirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) and finally by the High Court vide the impugned judgment dated 28.11.2011. C. Findings of the High Court 6. The High Court affirmed the findings

SHAH ORIGINALS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 24 MUMBAI

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

short, “the Act”. 2. The Assessing Officer (AO), by the assessment order dated 10.02.2006, disallowed the deduction claim of Rs. 26,62,927/- and added it to the assessee's taxable income. The case of the Revenue is that gain/profit on account of foreign currency fluctuations in the Exchange Earners Foreign Currency (EEFC) account cannot be attributed as an earning

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

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. M/S. GENERAL INSURANCE CORPN.OF INDIA

Disallowance of Rs. 1,04,28,500/- in respect of stamp duty and registration fees incurred in connection with the increase in the authorized share capital were bifurcated by the CIT (Appeals) into two categories, one relating to the increase in authorized share capital from Rs. 75 crores to Rs. 250 crores and second relating to issue of bonus shares

M.M. AQUA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI - III

Appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

terms and conditions of the agreement governing such loan or borrowing, or xxx xxx xxx shall be allowed (irrespective of the previous year in which the liability to pay such sum was incurred by the assessee according to the method of accounting regularly employed by him) only in computing the income referred to in section 28 of that previous year

SHIV RAJ GUPTA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI IV

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

short document containing two clauses, which are set out as follows: “1. In consideration of the sum of Rs. 6,00,00,000 (Rupees Six crores only) paid by SWC to Mr. Gupta as an advance against the aforesaid non-competition fee of Rs. 6,60,00,000 (the receipt whereof, Mr. Gupta hereby admits and acknowledges), Mr. Gupta hereby

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

short-term gain of Rs.20,000. 5. The company is entitled for deduction under section 80-I. Compute the net income of the company for the assessment year 1993-94. Profits and gains of business of profession: Rs. Net profit as P & L account Add: Amount not deductible by virtue of secs.40 and 40A 10,30,000 51,600 Less

M/S. SOUTHERN TECHNOLOGIES LTD. vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, COIMBATORE

short) operates in the field of monetary and credit system and that the said RBI Act never intended to compute taxable income of NBFC for income tax purposes; and, hence, there was no inconsistency between the two Acts. According to the Department, RBI has classified all assets on which there is either a default in payment of interest

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. CORE HEALTH CARE LTD

disallowance of http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6 Rs.1,56,76,000/- in respect of borrowings utilized for purchase of machinery. This decision was confirmed by the High Court, hence these civil appeals are filed by the Department. 4. The following question of law has been placed before us for determination: "Whether interest paid in respect

SHARP BUSINESS SYSTEM THR. FINANCE DIRECTOR MR. YOSHIHISA MIZUNO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III N.D

The appeals are hereby disposed of in terms of

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA

short. In the appeal, assessee contended that non-compete fee should be treated as an allowable revenue expenditure. However, in the course of the appellate proceedings, an alternative ground was put forth by the assessee that if the amount of non-compete fee paid to L&T was treated as capital expenditure, then the benefit of depreciation allowance should

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

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

short, ‘ACIT’) (Investigation), Circle 7(1), New Delhi to each of the assessees under Section 148 of the Act, in respect of Assessment Years 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90 (Assessment Years under consideration). An order was passed on 12th July, 1990 by ACIT (Investigation), Circle 13(1), New Delhi in respect of M/s Rattan Gupta & Co. under section

M/S MANGALORE GANESH BEEDI WORKS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MYSORE

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

terms of Section 35A and 35AB of the Act? iii) Whether the Tribunal had erred in directing the Assessing Officer 1 Page 2 JUDGMENT to capitalize the value of trademarks, copyright and technical know-how by treating the same as plant and machinery and grant depreciation therein? 3. In its conclusion, the High Court answered the first two questions

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,NEW DELHI vs. M/S ELI LILLY & COMPANY (INDIA) P.LTD

short deduction of tax at source. According to the learned counsel, even if the assessee herein is to be regarded as an assessee-in-default in terms of Section 201 of the Act, the tax alleged to be in default cannot be once again recovered from the assessee herein since the same stood paid by the expatriate

OIL & NATURAL GAS CORP. LTD. TR. M.D. vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN

The appeals are allowed; the impugned orders are

terms of borrowings repayable after the end of the relevant accounting year. Similar treatment was given to the foreign exchange loans taken for general purposes, used partly in revenue account and partly in capital account. Thus, the Assessee’s claim for foreign exchange loss/increased liability on revaluation of these foreign exchange loans at the end of the accounting year under

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA MILLS

The appeal is dismissed

short) for its opinion and answered in affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. This question has been answered differently by various High Courts one in favour of the assessee and the other in favour of the Revenue. Section 32 has since been amended by the Taxation Laws (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1986, with effect from

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN vs. M/S ENRON OIL & GAS INDIA LTD

Bench: Cit(A), Who After Analyzing The Psc Held That Each Co-Venturer In This Case Had Made Contribution At A Certain Rate Whereas The Expenditure Incurred Out Of The Said Contribution Stood Converted On The Basis Of The Previous 2

disallowed this loss on the ground that it was a mere book entry and actually no loss stood incurred by the assessee. 6. The decision of the A.O. was challenged in appeal by EOGIL before CIT(A), who after analyzing the PSC held that each co-venturer in this case had made contribution at a certain rate whereas the expenditure