Month: October 2015

Delhi H.C : the Tribunal erred in replacing the PLI adopted by the Assessee to determine the ALP with another PLI despite not providing any cogent reasons for the same and in fact providing contradictory remarks while rejecting Return on Capital Employed (‘ROCE’) as the PLI

High Court Of Delhi Johnson Metthey India Private Limited vs. DCIT Section 260A, 92CA(3) Asst. Year 2003-04 S. Muralidhar & Vibhu Bakhru, JJ. ITA 14/2013 30th October, 2015 Counsel appeared: Vikas Srivastava, Varsha Bhattacharya and Siddharth Joshi, Advocates for the Petitioner.: Kamal Sawhney, Senior Standing counsel with Raghavendra Singh and Shikhar Garg, Advocates for the Respondent …

Bombay H.C : The third member of the Tribunal erred in holding that he is bound to accept the view of one of the two members in spite of the fact that he has a third view

High Court Of Bombay Harish Textile Engrs. Ltd. vs. DCIT, Special Range-1 Block Period : 1-4-1986 To 12-9-1996 Section : 69A, 37(1), 292C M.S. Sanklecha And G.S. Kulkarni, JJ. IT Appeal No. 1398 Of 2000 October 30, 2015 JUDGMENT M.S. Sanklecha, J. – This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’) …

Delhi H.C : Section 69C was inapplicable in the facts and circumstances of the present cases given that the Revenue’s contention was that the material in the form of statement recorded during the search proceedings indicated that no genuine sale and purchase transaction was entered into by the assessee

High Court Of Delhi CIT Tax vs. RRJ Securities Ltd. Section 69C, 143(2), 153C, 260A Asst. Year 2003-04 to 2008-09 Dr. S. Muralidhar & Vibhu Bakhru, JJ. ITA 164/2015, 175/2015, 176/2015, 177/2015 30th October, 2015 Counsel appeared: N.P. Sahni, Senior Standing Counsel with Nitin Gulati, Junior Standing Counsel for the Appellant.: Kapil Goyal and V.M. Chaurasia …

Bombay H.C : The expenditure of Rs.43,600/ on medical treatment of eyes for improving the vision has an element of personal expenditure, and accordingly the expenditure incurred by the appellant on foreign tour for pre operation investigation relating to his eyes cannot be allowed as business expenditure u/s 37(1)

High Court Of Bombay Dhimant Hiralal Thakar vs. CIT Section 37(1) Asst. Year 1986-87 M.S. Sanklecha & G.S. Kulkarni, JJ. ITR NO. 487 OF 1997 28th October, 2015 Counsel appeared: Nitesh Joshi with Bharat Damodar i/b Kanga & Co., Advocates for the Petitioner.: Suresh Kumar : Advocate for the Respondent G. S. KULKARNI, J. 1. By …

S.C : Whether Rs. 12,24,700/- claimed as revenue expenditure by the Association of persons which was constituted by the three partners of the erstwhile firm, MGBW, can be allowed as permissible deduction in the hands of the said Association of persons under Section 37 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, as being laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the said Association of Persons?

Supreme Court Of India Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works vs. CIT, Mysore Section : 37(1), 32, 43(3), 260A Madan B. Lokur And S.A. Bobde, JJ. Civil Appeal Nos. 10547-10548 Of 2011 October 15, 2015 JUDGMENT Madan B. Lokur, J. – These appeals are directed against a judgment and order dated 23rd December, 2010 passed by the Division …

Delhi H.C : Whether the petitioner in each of these petitions is a related party of the respective specified person under section 245C(1)(ia)

High Court Of Delhi Rockland Hotels Ltd. vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission Principal Bench, & Ors. Section 153B, 245D(1) Badar Durrez Ahmed & Sanjeev Sachdeva, JJ. W.P.(C) 3557/2014, 3558/2014, 3559/2014, 3752/2014, 3753/2014, 3754/2014, 3755/2014, 3756/2014, 3757/2014, 3758/2014, 3759/2014, 3761/2014, 3762/2014 20th October, 2015 Counsel appeared: Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate with S.R. Wadhwa, Vaibhav Kulkarni and Kavita …

Delhi H.C : The ITAT affirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax [‘CIT (A)’] quashing the penalty imposed on the Assessee, JKD Capital and Finlease Limited, under Section 271-E of the Act

High Court Of Delhi PCIT-5 vs. JKD Capital & Finlease Ltd. Section : 271E Dr. S.Muralidhar And Vibhu Bakhru, JJ. IT Appeal No. 780 Of 2015 October 13, 2015 ORDER 1. This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) is directed against the impugned order dated 27th March 2015 …

Madras H.C : The Transfer Pricing Report and the Transfer Pricing Documentation had been filed with the respondent during the assessment year.

High Court Of Madras Carrier Race Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO Section 144C, 92CA Asst. Year 2012-13 R. Mahadevan, J Writ Petition No 13442 of 2015 12th October, 2015 Counsel appeared: P.H. Arvind Pandian Sr. Counsel, M/s. P.J. Rishikesh for the Petitioner: T. Pramod Kumar Chopda Sr. Standing Counsel for the Respondent. JUDGMENT ORDER : 1. …
Malcare WordPress Security