DILIP N. SHROFF vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI &ANR

The appeal is allowed

shortly. *** *** *** You are once against requested to decide the fate of penalty U/s 271(1)(c) immediately as desired by the assessee, since I am leaving the country for good and intend to prefer an appeal against the order of Penalty if passed." 11. The First Respondent, however, in his order dated 23.08.2000 purported to be in exercise

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. BALBIR SINGH MAINI

The appeals are dismissed with no order as to

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

68,276/-. 8. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal upholding the order passed by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which was also dismissed by the ITAT. 9. In the impugned judgment by the High Court under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, the High Court allowed

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

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

short question which is posed for consideration before this Court is whether the High Court has erred in law in allowing the respondent – assessee the loss of confiscation of silver bars by DRI officials as a business loss, relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of CIT Patiala vs. Piara Singh, 1980 Supp SCC 166? 6.1 While

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

68,543/-. Assessee-company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of intravenous solutions. For the assessment year under consideration assessee claimed deduction towards expenses aggregating to Rs.2,12,05,459/- which included interest on borrowings of Rs.1,56,76,000/-. During the assessment year under consideration assessee had installed new machinery. The A.O. vide assessment order dated

PRAKASH NATH KHANNA vs. COMMNR OF INCOME TAX

short the ’Old Act’) which are in pari-materia of Section 139(1) and Section 139(4) of the Act. It follows that return was furnished in "the due time" and consequently Section 276CC is not attracted. 2. The provisions of Section 276CC(i) are not intended to apply to the cases of assessees who have been regularly assessed

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

68,460/-. The assessee claimed a refund of `10,60,394/-. The A.O. initially processed the return under Section 143(1) and accepted it. Subsequently, the A.O. rectified the alleged mistake and charged interest under Section 234B of `1,10,67,561/-. The A.O. further charged interest under Section 234C of `40,18,170/-. This levy of interest took place

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

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

68,516/- to the taxable income on the ground that the provision for bad and doubtful debt was not allowable under Section 36(1)(vii) of the IT Act. The appellant claimed that the “Provision for NPA”, however, represented “loss” in the value of assets and was, therefore, allowable under Section 37(1) of the IT Act. This claim

ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

short, what is referred to in section 52(1)(aa) of the Copyright Act would not amount to reproduction so as to amount to an infringement of copyright. 39. Section 52(1)(ad) is independent of section 52(1)(aa) of the Copyright Act, and states that the making of copies of a computer programme from a personally legally obtained

M/S.VIRTUAL SOFT SYSTEMS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-I

short "the Act") merely on the ground that the total income of the assessee was assessed at a minus figure/loss. Tribunal had allowed the assessee’s appeal remitting the penalty imposed by the assessing officer under Section 271(1)(c) relating to the assessment year 1996-97, relying upon the decision of the Punjab High Court in CIT v. Prithipal

M/S. MANGALAM PUBLICATIONS, KOTTAYAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM

Bench: This Court & On Leave Being Granted, Civil Appeals Have Been Registered. 3.

short of the requirements specified therein. Vide the common appellate order dated 26.02.2004, CIT(A) held that, as the assessee had failed to disclose all material facts necessary to make assessments, therefore it could not be said that the reassessment proceedings were barred by limitation in terms of the proviso to Section 147. The other two grounds raised

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

SASI ENTERPRISES vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Egmore), Chennai, For The Willful & Deliberate Failure To File Returns For The Assessment Years 1991-92, 1992-93 & Hence Committing Offences Punishable Under Section 276 Cc Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”). Complaints Were Filed On 21.8.1997 After Getting The Sanction From The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Ii, Chennai Under Section 279(1) Of The Income Tax Act. Appellants Filed Two Discharge Petitions Under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C., Which Were Dismissed By The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vide Order Dated 14.6.2006. Appellants Preferred Crl. R.C. Nos.781 To 786 Of 2006 Before The High Court Of Madras Which Were Dismissed By The High Court Vide Its Common Order Dated 2.12.2006, Which Are The Subject Matters Of These Appeals.

short “the Act”). Complaints were filed on 21.8.1997 after getting the sanction from the Commissioner of Income Tax, Central II, Chennai under Section 279(1) of the Income Tax Act. Appellants filed two discharge petitions under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C., which were dismissed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 14.6.2006. Appellants preferred Crl. R.C. Nos.781

M/S D. N. SINGH THROUGH PARTNER DUDHESHWAR NATH SINGH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

Section 406 makes it abundantly clear that any such act by a carrier attracts the offence under Section 406. The Court in other words would have to allow the commission of an offence by the appellant in the process of finding that 71 the appellant is the owner of the goods. In other words, proceeding on the basis that there

CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX vs. M/S SAFARI RETREATS PRIVATE LIMITED

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

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

short, a registered person will not be entitled to ITC on the tax component of the cost of capital goods and plant and machinery if he claims depreciation on the said tax component under the Income Tax Act. The object is that a registered person does not take advantage of both depreciation and ITC. 29. Now we come