Month: February 2008

AAR : Whether payment received by M/s Raytheon Company under the transaction mentioned in Annex. I is liable to tax in India in the hands of the recipient non-resident US company ?

Authority For Advance Rulings Airports Authority Of India, In Re Section 90, 195, 245N, 245R(2), proviso, DTAA between India & USA, Art. 5, DTAA between India & USA, Art. 7, DTAA between India & USA, Art. 12 P.V. Reddi, J., Chairman; A. Sinha & Rao Ranvijay Singh, Members AAR Nos. 753 & 754 of 2007 28th …

AAR : Whether on the stated facts and in law, the tax payable on long term capital gain arisen to Moran Holdings, Plc on sale of originally acquired shares of Moran Tea Company (India) Ltd. will be 10 per cent of the amount of capital gain as per proviso to s. 112(1) of the IT Act, 1961 ?

Authority For Advance Rulings McLEOD Russel India Ltd., In Re Section 112(1), proviso, 245N(b) P.V. Reddi, J., Chairman; A. Sinha & Rao Ranvijay Singh, Members AAR No. 763 of 2007 28th February, 2008 Counsel Appeared : V.S. Wahi, for the Applicant : None, for the CIT concerned Ruling Rao Ranvijay Singh, member : The applicant, a …

S.C : Whether the completed contract method followed by the assessees and accepted by the Revenue in the past needed to be substituted by percentage of completion method as contended by the AO

Supreme Court Of India CIT vs. Bilahari Investment (P) Ltd. Section 28(i), 145 Asst. Year 1991-92 to 1997-98 S.H. Kapadia & B. Sudershan Reddy, JJ. Civil Appeal Nos. 1625 to 1632 of 2008 27th February, 2008 Counsel Appeared : Parag P. Tripathi with Vikram Gulati, Ranbir Chandra, Ms. Vismai Rao & B.V. Balaram Das, for the …

Madhya Pradesh H.C : the deduction as per the proviso to s. 80HHC has to be calculated independently without setting off the same against the loss worked out as per cls. (a), (b) and (c) of sub-s. (3) of s. 80HHC relying on their own earlier order dt. 26th Feb., 1999, in ITA Nos. 510 and 1026/Ind/1997 in the case of Alphine Solvex Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT even though the same was not accepted by the Department and against which appeal under s. 260A of the IT Act before the MP High Court is still pending for decision

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh CIT vs. Chemifine Section 80HHC, 260A A.M. Sapre & Ashok Kumar Tiwari, JJ. IT Appeal Nos. 34 & 35 of 2000 20th February, 2008 Counsel Appeared : R.L. Jain with Miss Vibha Mandlik for the Appellant : G M. Chaphekar with D. S. Kale, for the Respondent JUDGMENT By the court …

S.C : whether s. 40(b) of the 1961 Act is a stand-alone section or whether it operates as a limitation to the deduction under ss. 30 to 38 of the 1961 Act ?

Supreme Court Of India Munjal Sales Corporation vs. CIT & Anr. Sections 36(1)(iii), 40(b)(iv), Asst. yrs. 1993-94,1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98 S.H. Kapadia & B. Sudershan Reddy, JJ. Civil Appeal Nos. 1378 to 1382 of 2008 19th February, 2008 Counsel Appeared : S. Ganesh with Satyen Sethi & Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, for the Appellant : Parag P. …

Rajasthan H.C : Whether the AO in exercise of his jurisdiction under s. 143(1)(a) of the Act could have disallowed the claim laid by assessee to deduction under ss. 80HH and 80-I which involved a debatable question on which the difference of opinion exist ?

High Court Of Rajasthan Marlborough Polychem Ltd. vs. CIT Section 80HH, 80-I, 143(1)(a) N.P. Gupta & Deo Narayan Thanvi, JJ. IT Appeal Nos. 38 & 4580 of 2004 15th February, 2008 Counsel Appeared : Sanjeev Johari, for the Appellant : K.K. Bissa, for the Respondent ORDER N.P. GUPTA, J. : Heard learned counsel for the parties. …

Rajasthan H.C : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal is justified in upholding the order passed by the learned CIT(A) by holding that the impugned adjustment made by the AO was outside the purview of s. 143(1)(a) of the IT Act. ?

High Court Of Rajasthan CIT vs. Kothari Impex Section 80HHC, 143(1)(a), 143(1B) N.P. Gupta & Deo Narayan Thanvi, JJ. IT Appeal No. 20 of 2005 15th February, 2008 Counsel Appeared : K.K. Bissa, for the Appellant : G.R. Bhari for Sanjay Mathur, for the Respondent ORDER N.P. GUPTA, J. : This appeal has been filed by …
Malcare WordPress Security