Judgements and Orders, Supreme Court and High courts of India

S. 195 (1) TDS obligation does not arise if the payment is not chargeable to tax. Samsung Electronics not followed

Excise - Indirect Tax - Central Excise Act, 1944, ss. 2 (d) and 11A - Central Excise Rules, 1944, r. 173Q(1) - Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, heading 5905.10 - Excisable good - Unvulcanised sandwiched fabric/ Double textured rubberized fabrics

Judgment on Ambani gas dispute

Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 36(1)(vii) — deduction under — the Assessing Officer disallowed a sum of Rs.7,10,47,161/- which the assessee-Bank had reduced from Loans and Advances or Debtors on the ground that the impugned bad debt had not been writ

Central Excise Act, 1944 — Section 2(d) — excisable goods — the Collector of Central Excise noticed that during the manufacture of foot wear the assessee manufactures an excisable product called double textured fabric which emerges as a distinct prod

income tax Act, 1961 — Section 271(1)(c) — penalty proceedings — assessee/Company filed income tax Return and in respect of interest expenditure was claimed by the assessee — penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were initiated by the Assessin

Business Loss - Deduction of NCD - deduction of the losses at Rs.111/- per NCD as a business loss - market value of the shares at the time of issue of NCD – held that – matter remanded to high court - We expect the High Court to answer the question i

These appeals arise from the order dated 30.3.2004 of the Madras High Court in WP No. 2198/2003 filed by the President of Madras Bar Association (MBA for short) challenging the constitutional validity of Chapters 1B and 1C of the Companies Act, 1956(

Bye-laws have not been examined by the Assessing Officer or Bye-laws were not produced before the Assessing Officer - the assessee is not entitled to claim benefit of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(vi) of the Act- – matter remanded.

A short question which arises for determination in this civil appeal is – whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was, on the facts and circumstances of this case, justified in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) directi