Month: October 2016

Kerala H.C : the reassessment proceedings in the case of the assessee is not valid under law in light of the fact that there has been no full and true disclosure of material necessary for assessment during the original assessment proceedings

High Court Of Kerala CIT, Thiruvananthapuram vs. Hindustan Latex Ltd. Section : 80-I, 80HH, 147 Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan And Devan Ramachandran, JJ. IT Appeal No. 92 Of 2010 October 27, 2016 JUDGMENT Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. – This income tax appeal by the Department stands admitted on 30.09.2013 formulating the following as the substantial questions of …

Delhi H.C : Royalty and technical assistance fee did not form part of a composite transaction and have to be treated as two separate transactions for the purpose of benchmarking and computing arms length price

High Court Of Delhi Magneti Marelli Powertrain India (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT Section : 92C Assessment Year 2008-09 S. Ravindra Bhat And Ms. Deepa Sharma, JJ. IT Appeal No. 350 Of 2014 October 25, 2016 JUDGMENT S. Ravindra Bhat, J. – The assessee appeals, under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act (“the Act” hereafter) against …

Bombay H.C : The Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.80,58,000/- on the ground that provisions of section 50C of the IT Act, 1961 were not applicable to transfer of land and building, being a leasehold property

High Court Of Bombay CIT, Central-II, Mumbai vs. Greenfield Hotels & Estates (P.) Ltd. Section : 50C, 2(14), 45 Assessment Year 2007-08 M.S. Sanklecha And S.C. Gupte, JJ. IT Appeal No. 735 Of 2014 October 24, 2016 ORDER 1. This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) challenges the order dated …

S.C : the income tax appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been decided by the High Court without framing any substantial question of law. This, the appellant contends, is impermissible on the basis of several decisions of this Court including the one in “M.Janardhana Rao v. Jt. CIT” [2005] 142 Taxman 722

Supreme Court Of India Jai Hind Cycle Co. Ltd. vs. CIT-A.P. -1, Hyderabad Section 260A Ranjan Gogoi And Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ. Civil Appeal No. 10235 Of 2016 October 21, 2016 ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. The only point canvassed at the hearing is that the income tax appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax …

S.C : Assessee has been transferred from one Assessing Officer in Tamil Nadu to another Assessing Officer in Kerala and the two Assessing Officers are not subordinate to the same Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner of Income Tax, under Section 127(2)(a)

Supreme Court Of India Noorul Islam Educational Trust vs. CIT-I Section 127 Ranjan Gogoi And Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ. Civil Appeal No. 10234 Of 2016 October 21, 2016 ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. The challenge in the present appeal is against the order of the High Court of Madras, Madurai Bench, dated 20th March, 2015 passed …

Kerala H.C : the assessee has not understated the income or has not computed excessive loss or has not under-paid the tax in any manner, shall serve on the assessee a notice requiring him, on a date to be specifed therein, either to attend the office of the Assessing Officer or to produce, or cause to be produced before the Assessing Officer any evidence on which the assessee may rely in support of the return

High Court Of Kerala Travancore Diagnostics (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Kollam Section : 143, 147, 292BB Assessment Year : 2009-10 Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan And Devan Ramachandran, JJ. IT Appeal Nos. 221 And 228 Of 2015 October 19, 2016 JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J. – “The subjects of every State ought to have contributed towards support of …

Punjab & Haryana H.C : The Hon’ble ITAT was right in law in directing the Assessing Officer to compute the deduction u/s 80 IA by following the method in section 80 HHC (3) for working out profit/loss from trading goods

High Court Of Punjab And Haryana CIT-III, Ludhiana vs. Nahar Exports Ltd. Section : 268A Assessment Year : 1998-99 S.J. Vazifdar, CJ. And Darshan Singh, J. IT Appeal No. 253 Of 2007 (O & M) October 19, 2016 JUDGMENT S.J. Vazifdar, CJ. – This is an appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal …

S.C : The assessees are attempting the wriggle out from payment of capital gain tax on the ground that it was a “slump sale” within the meaning of Section 2(42C)

Supreme Court Of India Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Assessment), Mysore Section 45, 50B Assessment Year 1995-96 A.K. Sikri And N.V. Ramana, JJ. Civil Appeal Nos. 1234 To 1245 Of 2012 October 18, 2016 JUDGMENT A.K. Sikri, J. – Delay condoned in Special Leave Petition (C) No CC 9101 and 10193 of 2014. 2. Leave granted. 3. …

Bombay H.C : the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that deduction under section 80-O was not allowed on the gross receipts, but only on that part of receipts which form part of the total income of the assessee

High Court Of Bombay Tata Unisys Ltd. vs. CIT Section : 80-O Assessment Year : 1985-86 M.S. Sanklecha And S.C. Gupte, JJ. IT Reference No. 61 Of 2000 October 13, 2016 JUDGMENT M. S. Sanklecha, J. – None appears on behalf of the Revenue. The applicant has filed an affidavit of service, indicating completion of service …
Malcare WordPress Security