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

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

deduction in respect of any expenditure or allowance or set off of any loss shall be allowed to the assessee under any provision of this Act in computing his income referred to in clause (a) and clause (b) of sub-section (1).” 14.Section 115BBE of the Act deals with levy of tax on income as mentioned in Section 68

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

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

68,82,801/- as Duty Draw Back (DDB) and claimed deduction under Section 80HHC amounting to Rs. 1,57,68

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

deduction in respect of Rs. 81,68,516/- under Section 36(1)(vii) being Provision for NPA in terms of RBI Directions

COMMNR.,INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. K. RAVINDRANATHAN NAIR

68,811, in the total turnover while arriving at export profits under Section 80HHC(3) of the Act, as it stood at the material time. 6. According to A.O., the gross total income of the assessee was Rs.1,94,08,220 from which an amount of Rs.1,74,13,200 (90%) was deducted

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

THE CITIZEN COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR G.RANGA RAO. HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed reportable

deduction claimed u/s 80P : Rs.4,26,37,817/- Total assessed income : Rs.42,80,09,880/- Tax there on : (as per computation Form enclosed). Tax payable : Rs.19,57,32,920/- 6) It may be pointed out that in the appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) {CIT(A)}, the order of the Assessing Officer making disallowance under Section 68

NAVIN JINDAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Section 48(2) of the Act becomes applicable. For that purpose, we annex hereinbelow a chart indicating Computation of Income under the head “Capital gains”, as projected by the assessee on the one hand and as projected by the Assessing Officer on the other hand. ...12/- 12 - COMPUTATION OF INCOME UNDER THE HEAD “CAPITAL GAINS As per assessee

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, KERALA vs. M/S. TARA AGENCIES

Appeal is allowed and the

68. On clear construction and interpretation of section 35B(1A) of the Act, we are clearly of the opinion that the respondent\022s activity amounts to \023processing\024 only and the activity does not amount to either \023production\024 or \023manufacture\024. The term \023processing\024 has not been included in section 35 B(1A) of the Act, therefore

COMMISSIONER OF GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE vs. M/S CITIBANK N.A

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH

deduction from account and any form of payment by issue of credit note or debit note or book adjustment, inter alia. 67 59. As far as payment of service tax is concerned which is governed by Section 68

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

deductions provided for the amount of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income referred to in Section 28. 38. In SA Builders Ltd. (supra), this Court considered the question regarding allowability of interest on borrowed funds. This Court referred to the provisions of Section

COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE vs. VENKATESHWARA HATCHERIES

deductions. Therefore, the income from poultry being outside the scope of total income by virtue of omitted Section 10(27) of the Act, there was no question for application of Sections 32A and 80J to them at least when we find that Section 80JJ was consciously simultaneously re-enacted on the omission of Section 10(27) of the Act specially

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

deductions/ allowances under Sections 30- 37, is fluid/ inchoate and subject to final determination only on adjudication of assessment either under Section 143(1) or under Section 143(3). The fact that the amount of tax credit to be allowed or to be set off is not frozen and is ambulatory, does not take away/ destroy the right

BASIR AHMED SISODIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal is allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR

Section 68 and added in declared income of assessee.  Accordingly, the computation of income of assessee for assessment year 1998­99 is as follows: 3 Income shown in the Returns 87500/­ 1. Disallowed deduction

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

Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, stood dismissed. 3. On 31.12.92 assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 1992-93 declaring "nil" income. Later on the assessee filed a revised return on 6.8.93 declaring a loss of Rs.1,11,68,543/-. Assessee-company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of intravenous solutions

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX II vs. M/S MODIPON LTD

The appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed reportable

Bench: Delving Into The Question Formulated One Significant Fact Common To The Appeals Involving The Assessee-Modipon Ltd. May Be Noted. From The Assessment Year 1984-1985 (From Which Assessment Year

deduction for the balance amount in the PLA at the end of each accounting year and adding back the same as part of the taxable income in the immediately succeeding accounting year really makes the dispute between the parties academic as the revenue implication, in any event, is nil. Shri Vohra has submitted that the aforesaid practice has been accepted

PRAKASH NATH KHANNA vs. COMMNR OF INCOME TAX

68,039/- is based on no evidence and is contrary to the materials on record. 4. The petitioners in reply to show cause notice issued pleaded that the delay in submission of http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 13 returns was unavoidable, because their share of profit from the firm in which they were partners

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

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