SHITAL FIBERS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

deductions under Section 80-HHC and 80-IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the IT Act’). The return was accepted on 31st October, 2002. Reassessment

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

reassessment proceedings were carried out in respect of the aforementioned assessment years by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax only in respect of the income on equalization reserve stating: "I have considered the various arguments of the assessee’s representative and I am satisfied that the deduction

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD NO.16(2) vs. M/S TECHSPAN INDIA PRIVATE LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. TECHSPAN INDIA LTD.) THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIR

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

deduction under Section 10A of the IT Act has been allowed in excess and the income escaped assessment works out to Rs. 57,36,811/- in the original assessment. The Respondent filed a detailed reply objecting to the re-assessment. However, by order dated 17.08.2005, the objections were rejected and reassessment

VINUBHAI MOHANLAL DOBARIA vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms

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

deducted at source: Provided that the Assessing Officer may, in such cases and under such circumstances as may be prescribed, reduce or waive the interest payable by any assessee under this sub- section.” 38. A perusal of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that irrespective of whether the return of income is filed by an assessee after the specified date

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS PVT.LTD

The appeal is allowed without

reassessment proceedings was valid and he had jurisdiction to undertake such an exercise. It is in the aforesaid backdrop of facts that the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 12th May, 2004 was challenged by the respondent. 5. The High Court allowed the writ petition following the decision of the High Court in Adani Exports v. Deputy

BRIJ LAL vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

deduction or collection and which is taken into account in computing such total income. Explanation 2.—Where, in relation to an assessment year, an assessment is made for the first time under section 147, the assessment so made shall be regarded as a regular assessment for the purposes of this section. Explanation 3.—In Explanation 1 and in sub- section

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 3 vs. ABHISAR BUILDWELL P. LTD

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

reassess the case and bring to tax such income also. Thus, the Act, 1961 contains elaborate machinery to facilitate determination of ‘total income’ and collection of tax thereon. iii) It is further submitted that the AO, in order to determine ‘total income’ correctly, needs to collect information from the assessee as well as third parties. The Statute contains many provisions

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,SIMLA vs. M/S GREEN WORLD CORPORATION

Appeals are disposed of with the aforementioned directions

deductible u/s 80IA, the lower claim of depreciation was not causing any prejudice to the interest of Revenue at least in the year under consideration and the apprehension of the learned CIT about such prejudice which may be caused to the Revenue in the subsequent years was based on 29 assumptions and surmises depending on ultimate eventualities like

COMMNR.,CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS, KERALA vs. M/S. LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD

Appeals are disposed of

deducting from the gross value of the works contract the value of property in goods transferred in the execution of a works contract. 25. In fact, by way of contrast, Section 67 post amendment (by the Finance Act, 2006) for the first time prescribes, in cases like the present, where the provision of service is for a consideration which

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

The appeals are allowed in the above

deduction at source. Before introduction of Section 244(1A) the assessee was not entitled to get any interest from the date of payment of tax upto the date of the order as a result of which excess realisation of tax became refundable. Interest under Section 243 or Section 244 was payable only when the refund was not made within

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

deduction under Section 37 of the said Act. However, when there is manufacture and sale of an 1 army of items running into thousands of units of sophisticated goods, the past event of defects being detected in some of such items leads to a present obligation which results in an enterprise having no alternative to settling that obligation

K.M. SHARMA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 13(7),NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

deducted at source amounting to Rs.8,60,701/- 3. Since the lands acquired were agricultural lands and were acquired prior to 1.4.1970, capital gains tax was not leviable but tax was leviable on interest earned on the amount awarded on year to year basis. 4. The appellant through counsel sent a letter dated 17.9.1993 informing the ITO that

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

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

deduction shall   be   made   in   respect   of   any   expenditure incurred   by   the   assessee   in   relation   to   income which does not form part of the total income under the   Income­tax   Act.   The   proposed   amendment   will take effect retrospectively from 1st April, 1962 and   will   accordingly,   apply   in   relation   to   the assessment   year   1962­1963   and   subsequent assessment years.” 16. Section   14A   being

M/S POLYFLEX (INDIA) PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARNATAKA

The appeal is dismissed without costs

deduction or allowance had been given in the assessment for earlier period, the assessee is liable to disgorge that benefit as and when he obtains refund of the amount so paid. The consideration whether there is a possibility of the refund being set at naught on a future date will not be a relevant consideration. Once the assessee gets back

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY

deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act. (2) The Assessing Officer shall determine the amount of expenditure incurred in relation to such income which does not form part of the total income under this Act in accordance with such

NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO

reassess such income, other than the income involving matters which   are   the   subject­matter   of   any   appeal,   reference   or revision,   which   is   chargeable   to   tax   and   has   escaped assessment. 10 11 Explanation   1.—Production   before   the   Assessing   Officer   of account books or other evidence from which material evidence could,   with   due   diligence,   have   been   discovered   by   the Assessing   Officer   will

SHABINA ABRAHAM vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS

deduct the amount so payable from any money owing to the person from whom such sums may be recoverable or due which may be in his hands or under his disposal or control, or may recover the amount by attachment and sale of excisable goods belonging to such person; and if the amount payable is not so recovered

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX-I,NEW DELHI vs. VATIKA TOWNSHIP P.LTD

Appeals of the assessees are allowed deleting the surcharge levied by the

deduction of salary, interest, commission, bonus or remuneration by whatever name called to any partner not being a working partner: Provided that undisclosed income of the firm so determined shall not be chargeable to tax in the hands of the partners, whether on allocation or on account of enhancement; (c) assessment under Section 143 includes determination of income under