Month: February 2012

Delhi H.C : Exercise of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was non est and invalid

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Jagson International Ltd. Section 147, 148 Asst. Year 2001-02 Sanjiv Khanna & R. V. Easwar, JJ. ITA Nos. 1379/2009 & 1410/2009 29th Feb., 2012 Counsel appeared Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel for the Petitioner: C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate with Rajiv Saxena, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER 1. Heard. 2. Admit. …

Karnataka H.C : Where assessee running hotel business in his property had given operation and management of his hotels to a company and entered into revenue sharing agreement with that company in terms of which it was entitled to 20 per cent of gross operating profit, such share of profit would be assessed as business income

High Court Of Karnataka CIT, Central Circle Vs. Anriya Project Management Services (P.) Ltd. Assessment Years : 2005-06 And 2006-07 Section : 80-IB Kumar And Ravi Malimath, JJ. It Appeal Nos. 114, 128, 138 & 139 Of 2010 February  29, 2012 N. Kumar, J. – ITA Nos. 138/2010 and 139/2010 are filed by the revenue challenging the …

Delhi H.C : Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not applicable on the ground that the partnership firm i.e. the respondent-assessee was not a shareholder in Bharti Enterprise Pvt. Ltd.

High Court Of Delhi CIT VS. Bharti Overseas Trading Co. Assessment Year : 2004-05 Section : 2(22) Sanjiv Khanna And R.V. Easwar, JJ. IT Appeal No. 401 Of 2011 February 29, 2012 JUDGMENT CM No.3675/2011 (Delay) Sanjiv Khanna, J – This is an application for condonation of delay of 192 days in the refiling of the …

Bombay H.C : deduction by way of bad debts under Section 36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of the amount which could not be recovered from its clients in respect of transactions effected by him on behalf of his clients apart from the commission earned by him

High Court Of Bombay CIT, Central II vs. Shreyas S. Morakhia Assessment Year: 1998-99 Section : 36(1)(Vii), 36(2) Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud And M.S. Sanklecha, JJ. IT Appeal No. 89 Of 2011 February 28, 2012 JUDGMENT Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. – This appeal by the Revenue arises from a decision of a Special Bench of the Income …

Karnataka H.C : If common area does not exclusively belong to owner of a residential unit and if he has to share that common area with owner of another residential unit, then that common area has to be excluded while computing built-up area to extend benefit under section 80-IB(10)

High Court Of Karnataka CIT – III, Bangalore vs. Raghavendra Constructions Assessment Year : 2007-08 Section : 80-IB N. Kumar And Ravi Malimath, JJ. IT Appeal No. 177 Of 2011 February 28, 2012 JUDGMENT N. Kumar, J. – The revenue has preferred this appeal challenging the order passed by the Tribunal wherein it has been held …

AAR : The transfer of shares of UVW India by the applicant to its wholly owned subsidiary UVW India, in the course of the proposed buy-back of shares, be exempt from tax in India in the hands of the applicant, in view of the provisions of section 47(iv)

Authority For Advance Rulings (Income-Tax), New Delhi RST, In Re Section : 46A Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan, Chairman And V.K. Shridhar, Member A.A.R. No. 1067 Of 2011 February 27, 2012 RULING Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan, Chairman – The applicant is a company incorporated in Germany with limited liability. It is a part of a Group of companies. The …
Malcare WordPress Security