Month: January 2016

AAR : The investment held by the Applicant in equity shares of Dow Agrosciences India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘DAS India’) would be considered as ‘capital asset’ under section 2(14)

Authority Of Advance Rulings Dow Agro Sciences Agricultural Products Ltd., In Re Section : 92, 115JB, 195, 211 V.S. Sirpurkar, Chairman, A.K. Tewary, Member (Revenue) & R.S. Shukla, Member (Law) A.A.R. No 1123 of 2011 11th January, 2016 Rajan Vora, SRBC & Assoc., CA Vijay Vaidya, SRBC & Asso.,CA for the Applicant.: Sukhvinder Khanna, CIT-DR(AAR), ND S.S. …

Allahabad H.C : The time of search and seizure operation the assessment proceedings had not started on the basis of the return filed by the assessee

High Court Of Allahabad CIT vs. Hemkunt Timbers Ltd. Section 148, 147, 150 Vinod Kumar Misra & Tarun Agarwala, JJ. ITA No. 465 of 2005 7th January, 2016 Counsel appeared: Tarun Agarwala, J. 1. This is a Department’s appeal against the order of the Tribunal setting aside the assessment made under Section 148 of the Income Tax …

Delhi H.C : For computing the net worth under Section 50B, Section 43(6)(c)(i)(C) is not applicable in case of slump sale of the undertaking includes the entire block of assets

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Dharampal Satyapal Section 260A, 50B, 43, 32 Asst. Year 2001-02 S. Muralidhar & Vibhu Bakhru,JJ. ITA 1003/2011 6th January, 2016 Counsel appeared: Raghvendra Kumar Singh, Junior Standing Counsel and Shikhar Garg for the Appellant.: Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate with Kavita Jha and Vaibhav Kulkarni for the Respondent VIBHU BAKHRU, J. …

Allahabad H.C : Whether Hon’ble ITAT is justified in law and on facts that he has wrongly accepted the breakup of receipt of Junior High School and Senior Secondary School in the impression that it was done by A.O., contrary to the fact that it was mere submission by the assessee Society

High Court Of Allahabad CIT (Exemption) vs. Chironji Lal Virendra Pal Saraswati Shiksha Parishad Section : 10 (23-C)(vi) Asst. Year : 2010-11 & 2011-2012 Amreshwar Pratap Sahi & Attau Rahman Masoodi, JJ ITA No. 150 of 2015 5th January, 2016 Counsel appeared: Alok Mathur for the Appellant. ORDER: This appeal filed on behalf of the department …

Karnataka H.C : Additional depreciation allowed u/s. 32(1) (iia) is a onetime benefit to encourage industrialization and the relevant provisions has been construed reasonably and purposive without appreciating that the additional depreciation is allowed in the year of purchase and if in the year of purchase the assessee is eligible only for 50% depreciation, the balance 50% cannot be carried forward for the subsequent year or the claim cannot be allowed in any other year where the section 32(1) (iia) does not speak of any further depreciation except in the year of purchase

High Court Of Karnataka CIT & Anr. vs. Rittal India (P) Ltd. Section 32(1)(iia), 260A Asst. Year 2010-11 N.K.Patil & S. Sujatha, JJ I.T.A.NO. 590 OF 2015 4th January, 2016 Counsel appeared: K.V. Aravind, Adv, for the Appellant. N.K.PATIL, J.: 1. This appeal by the Revenue is arising out cl the impugned order dated 11/06/2015, passed …
Malcare WordPress Security