The Commissioner of Income Tax - VI vs. M/s. Manikanta Iron AND Hardware

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

207 ITR 89 (Cal.),  and thereafter, held as under: “22. As the onus was on assessee and it has  not   been   discharged   by   producing evidence   which   in   case   of   genuine  transaction   could   well   be   proved   by  producing   evidence   in   this   regard,   the  Page 11 of 41 C/TAXAP/194/2008 JUDGMENT transactions   entered   into   by   the   assessee  are liable to be ignored particularly

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III, vs. M/S. SAVIJANA SEA FOODS PVT. LTD.,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

section in the 1922 Act was amended in 1939, allowance was given in respect of any non-capital expenditure „incurred solely for the purpose of earning such profits or gains.‟ Under the present law, the expenditure should be laid out „wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business.‟ The two expressions are not ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Kokivenkateswara Reddy AND others,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

section in the 1922 Act was amended in 1939, allowance was given in respect of any non-capital expenditure „incurred solely for the purpose of earning such profits or gains.‟ Under the present law, the expenditure should be laid out „wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business.‟ The two expressions are not ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Energy Solutions International India Pvt Ltd.,

Bench: J. UMA DEVI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee) laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession…”. The text of this sub section shows its building blocks such as: ‘expenditure’, ‘wholly and exclusively’ and ‘incurred

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Shri Raaj Kumar Jain

Section 27 begins with a proviso and states that when any fact is deposed to as discovered, in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved, 49 whether it amounts to a confession

M/s. Canara Securities Ltd vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO,T.AMARNATH GOUD

Section 178 of the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, the Chairman of the company, HVL cannot arrogate unto himself the power to cause such appointment when such power ultimately rests with the Board of Directors. The observation of the two Joint APLs that the evident performance of BCrL, the flagship company of MP Birla Group is deteriorating ever since, HVL became