taxcaselaw.com – taxcaselaw.com

Bombay H.C : Order passed by DIT(E) is beyond the scope of Sec. 263 of the I T. Act when the subject matter of revision is applicability of proviso to Sec. 2(15) and not denial of exemption u/s. 11

High Court Of Bombay CIT (Exemption) vs. Slum Rehabilitation Authority Section 2(15), 10(20), 11, 80-I, 80-I(2), 143(3), 263, 263(1) Asst. Year 2009-10 Akil Kureshi & Sarang V. Kotwal, JJ. Income Tax Appeal No. 1359 OF 2016 26th March, 2019 Counsel Appeared: Suresh Kumar for the Petitioner.: S.E. Dastur, Sr. Counsel, Nishant Thakkar, Jasmin Amalsadvala, i/by Mint …

S.C : The expenditure cannot be considered as business expenditure

Supreme Court Of India Pr.CIT vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. Asst. Year 1993-94 Abhay Manohar Sapre & Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. Civil Appeal No. 4026 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.1153 of 2018) 22nd April, 2019 Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Leave granted. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 17.07.2017 passed by the …

Bombay H.C : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT is correct in holding the compensation received by the appellant from Oracle Global (Mauritius) Ltd. for delay in payment of proceeds of shares tendered under the open offer includible in Capital Gains as against Interest Income ?

High Court Of Bombay CIT (IT) vs. Morgan Stanley Mauritius Company Ltd. Akil Kureshi & Sarang V. Kotwal, JJ. Income Tax Appeal No.1835 OF 2016 19th March, 2019 Counsel Appeared: Tejveer Singh for the Petitioner.: Sunil M. Lala, Karen D’Souza, i/b India Law Alliance for the Respondent. P.C.: 1. This Appeal is filed by the Revenue, …

Delhi H.C : The petitioner has been denied approval under Section 35(1)(ii) of the Income tax Act 1961

High Court Of Delhi Manipal Academy Of Higher Education vs. Union Of India & Anr. S. Ravindra Bhat & Prateek Jalan, JJ. Section 10, 10(23C), 10(23C)(vi), 11, 12, 139(1), 28, 288(2), 35, 35(1), 35(1)(ii), 41, 43(4) W.P.(C) 9996/2015 8th April, 2019 Counsel Appeared: Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Vikrant Pachnand, Adv. for the Petitioner.: Vikram Jetly, Adv. …

Madras H.C : No part of the consideration for sate was received by the appellant and same was directly paid to the Bank by the purchaser in discharge of the mortgage amount and therefore no capital gains arises in the hands of the appellant

High Court Of Madras D. Zeenath vs. ITO Section 48 Asst. Year 1995-1996 Vineet Kothari & C. V. Karthikeyan, JJ. T.C.A No. 2582 of 2006 3rd April, 2019 Counsel appeared: Subhang Nair Assisted, Shobana Krishnan for the Appellant.: M. Swaminathan (Senior Standing Counsel) Assisted by V.Pushpa for the Respondent C. V. KARTHIKEYAN, J. The assessee has …