Skip to content

taxcaselaw.com

My account

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

taxcaselaw.com

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

January 2015

Income Tax Case Laws, Sec. 37(1)

Gujarat H.C : the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in deleting the addition made on account of expenses incurred for replacement of membrane cells-II, treating the same as capital expenditure, by following the rule of consistency and without considering the issues on merits

Avijit Das / January 19, 2015

High Court Of Gujarat CIT-I vs. Gujarat Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd. Section : 37(1) Assessment Year : 1999-2000 Jayant Patel […]

Gujarat H.C : Whether the order below the stay application could be passed by respondent no.2 without recording any reasons or not?

Avijit Das / January 19, 2015

High Court Of Gujarat Hitech Outsourcing Services vs. ITO-Ward 6 (2) Section 251 Assessment year 2011-12 Jayant Patel And S.H.

Sec. 40(a)(ia), Sec. 194C

Karnataka H.C : the assessee is not bound to deduct TDS as the provisions of section 194C are not attracted as no agreement was entered into by the assessee with the other operators, when the assessee has admitted the applicability of section 194C and tax was deducted at source

Avijit Das / January 19, 2015

High Court Of Karnataka CIT vs. Janani Tours & Resorts (P.) Ltd. Section 40(a)(ia),194C N.Kumar And B. Veerappa, JJ. IT

Delhi H.C : Whether the assessee is engaged in activity which can be termed “manufacture” so as to claim benefit of Section 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”)

Avijit Das / January 19, 2015

High Court Of Delhi CIT-VIII vs. Ms. Kiran Kapoor Section 10B Assessment Years : 2003-04 to 2006-07 S. Ravindra Bhat

Sec. 260A, Income Tax Case Laws, Sec. 10B(1), Section 10B, Section 80-IA

Karnataka H.C : The assembling of instruments and apparatus for measuring and detecting ionizing radiators as admitted in column 8(a) of Form-3CD is a manufacturing activity producing an article or thing and therefore entitled to claim deduction u/s. 10B of the Act

Avijit Das / January 19, 2015

High Court Of Karnataka CIT vs. Saint Gobain Crystals & Detectors India (P.) Ltd. Section 260A, 10B, 10B(1), 80(IA) Asst.

Sec. 37(1), Section 37

Gujarat H.C : the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in deleting the addition made on account of expenses incurred for replacement of membrane cells-II, treating the same as capital expenditure, by following the rule of consistency and without considering the issues on merits

Avijit Das / January 19, 2015

High Court Of Gujarat CIT-I vs. Gujarat Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd. Section : 37(1) Assessment Year : 1999-2000 Jayant Patel

Sec. 271(1)(c ), Section 69

Madras H.C : the provisions of clause (B) of Explanation 1 to section 271(1) are attracted thereby reversing the order of the first appellate authority cancelling the penalty

Avijit Das / January 19, 2015

High Court Of Madras R. Padmanabhan vs. DCIT Section : 271(1)(c), 69 Assessment Year : 1995-96 R. Sudhakar And R.

Delhi H.C : Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,28,400 being the guest house expenses relying on its earlier order when the same are not accepted by the Department and the same expenditure is clearly disallowable under section 37(4)

Avijit Das / January 19, 2015

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. Section 32AB Assessment year 1989-90 Sanjiv Khanna And V. Kameswar

Income Tax Case Laws, Section 139, Section 147, Section 148, Section 80HHE

Delhi H.C : Whether the re-opening of the assessment under Section 147 of Income Tax Act, after completion of the assessment proceedings on 21.03.2006 under Section 143(3), leading to the notice under Section 148 of Income Tax Act issued on 22.03.2010 was for the reason of “change of opinion” and, therefore, impermissible in law?

Avijit Das / January 19, 2015

High Court Of Delhi Donaldson India Filters Systems (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Circle 10 (1) Section : 80HHE, 139, 147

Gujarat H.C : Since some or all beneficiaries of the Trust are discretionary Trust, to the extent of share of beneficiary as discretionary Trust, the tax can be charged at the maximum marginal rate under Section 164 and not under Section 161 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the, ‘Act’)

Avijit Das / January 16, 2015

High Court Of Gujarat Neo Trust vs. ITO Section : 164, 161 Jayant Patel And S.H. Vora, JJ. IT Appeal

Post pagination

← Previous 1 2 3 … 6 Next →

Copyright © 2024 taxcaselaw.com | Powered by Astra WordPress Theme

Scroll to Top