Month: October 2011

S.C : High Court under section 260A against decision of Tribunal, High Court, while overruling decision of Tribunal, should give its findings in detail, particularly on question whether there was any error of law in decision of Tribunal and whether that error caused prejudice to revenue

Supreme Court Of India Rajesh Mahajan vs. CIT Section : 260A, 158BC S.H. Kapadia, Cj. A.K.Patnaik And Swatanter Kumar, JJ. Civil Appeal Nos. 8955 & 8956 Of 2011 October 31, 2011 JUDGMENT Delay condoned. Leave granted. The appellant is an individual. He is a partner in M/s. Mahajan Exports, Panipat, and M/s. Maspar, Panipat. He derives …

Karnataka H.C : the income derived by the assessee from manufacturing of seeds and sale of the same would amount to agricultural income which would be exempt under Section 10(1)

High Court Of Karnataka CIT, Central Circle, Bangalore vs. Namdhari Seeds (P.) Ltd. Assessment Years : 2003-04, 2004-05 And 2006-07 Section : 2(1A) Mrs. Manjula Chellur And Aravind Kumar, JJ. IT Appeal Nos. 75, 76 And 284 Of 2007, 19, 387 To 389, 474, 739, 740 And 748 Of 2008 October 24, 2011 JUDGMENT Mrs. Manjula …

Karnataka H.C : The amounts paid to clubs for obtaining membership should be treated as a revenue expenditure and was allowable deduction and not a capital receipt as held by the Assessing Officer

High Court Of Karnataka CIT vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd. (No.1) Assessment Years : 1995-96 And 1996-97 Section : 37(1) Ravi Malimath And V.G Sabhahit, JJ. IT Appeal Nos. 2975, 2976 & 3011 Of 2005 October 21, 2011 JUDGMENT V.G. Sabhahit, J. – I.T.A. Nos. 2975 of 2005 and 2976 of 2005 are filed by the Revenue …

Allahabad H.C : Whether, in view of the provisions of section 80-IA(9) applicable to section 80-IB of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the restriction imposed by section 80-IA(9) is applicable at the stage of allowing deduction under section 80HHC or is applicable even at the stage of computing deduction under section 80HHC

High Court Of Allahabad Anil Kumar Rastogi vs. ITO Assessment Years : 2001-02 & 2002-03 Section : 263 Sunil Ambwani And Kashi Nath Pandey, JJ. IT Appeal Nos. 211 Of 2008 And 253 Of 2011 October 21, 2011 JUDGMENT 1. We have heard Sri Piyush Kaushik, learned counsel for the appellants. Sri A. N. Mahajan appears …

Karnataka H.C : The amount(s) paid by the appellant(s) to the foreign software suppliers was not ‘royalty’ and that the same did not give rise to any ‘income’ taxable in India and, therefore, the appellant(s) was not liable to deduct any tax at source

High Court Of Karnataka CIT, International Taxation Vs. Sunray Computers (P.) Ltd. Assessment Years : 1999-2000 To 2002-03 Section : 9 V.G. Sabhahit And Ravi Malimath, JJ. IT Appeal Nos. 168 & 170 Of 2004 And 756 To 758 Of 2006 October 21, 2011 JUDGMENT V.G. Sabhahit, J. – ITA Nos. 756, 757 & 758/2006 are …

Bombay H.C : the transaction charges paid by the assessee to the stock exchanges were not fees for technical services and, therefore, the provisions of section 194J were not attracted and consequently the provisions of section 40(a)(ia)

High Court Of Bombay CIT vs. Kotak Securities Ltd. Assessment Year : 2005-06 Section : 194J J.P. Devadhar And A.A. Sayed, JJ. IT Appeal No. 3111 Of 2009 October 21, 2011 JUDGMENT J.P. Devadhar, J. – Although six questions of law are raised by the Revenue in this appeal, learned counsel for the Revenue does not …

S.C : Claim for deduction was rejected by Assessing Officer on ground that since in normal computation there was no profit after carry forward loss of earlier years, deduction under section 80HHE for computing book profit under section 115JA was not admissible

Supreme Court Of India CIT vs. Bhari Information Technology Systems (P.) Ltd. Assessment Year : 2000-01 Section : 115JA, 80HHE S.H. Kapadia, CJ. K.S. Radhakrishnan And Swatanter Kumar, JJ. Special Leave Petition No. 33750 Of 2009 October 20, 2011 ORDER 1. Assessee filed its return of income for asst. yr. 2000-01. Assessee claimed deduction under s. …

Bombay H.C : Where transaction of financial restructuring with lenders and resultant waiver of interest were disclosed in return of income, reopening of assessment was not sustainable

High Court Of Bombay Lok Housing And Construction Ltd. Vs. DCIT Assessment Year : 2004-05 Section : 147 Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud And A. A. Sayed, JJ. W. P. No. 1634 Of 2011 October 20, 2011 JUDGMENT Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. – Rule, by consent returnable forthwith. With the consent of counsel and at their request, …
Malcare WordPress Security