Month: February 2019

S.C : The Revenue arises out of the income tax proceedings initiated against the respondent(assessee) on the basis of a search operation which was carried out by the Income Tax Department in assessee’s premises

Supreme Court Of India CIT vs. Rashtradoot (HUF) Section 260A Asst. Year 1987-88 to 1996-97 & 1997-98 Abhay Manohar Sapre & Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. CIVIL APPEAL No. 2362 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.20075 of 2017) 27th February, 2019 ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. Leave granted. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order …

Bombay H.C : Interest income at the concessional rate as per the DTAA was not in the mind of the Assessing Officer when such queries were raised and the order of assessment was passed, one thing that cannot be denied is that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for assessment

High Court Of Bombay Precilion Holdings Limited vs. DCIT (International Taxation) Section 147, 148 Asst. Year 2011-12 Akil Kureshi & M. S. Sanklecha, JJ. Writ Petition No. 3342 OF 2018 25th February, 2019 Counsel Appeared: Jehangir Mistri, Senior Counsel a/w Madhur Agrawal i/by Atul Jasani for the Petitioner.: P.C. Chhotaray for the Respondent Akil Kureshi, J. …

Bombay H.C : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was correct in not treating the Hospital Based Consultants (HBCs) as employees and therefore provisions of Section 192 is not applicable?

High Court Of Bombay Pr.CIT (TDS) vs. National Health & Education Society (P.D. Hinduja Hospital & Medical Research Centre) Section 3, 131, 133A, 192, 194C, 194H, 194J, 201, 201(1), 201(IA), 260A S.C.Dharmadhikari & B.P. Colabawalla, JJ. Income Tax Appeal No.105 of 2016 WITH 116 of 2016, 112 of 2016, 115 of 2016, 121 of 2016, 128 …

S.C : Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law and on facts in deleting the addition made u/s 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on conversion of upaid interest into a funded interest loan treating the same as interest payment?

Supreme Court Of India CIT vs. Gujarat Cyrpomet Ltd. Ashok Bhushan & K.M. Joseph, JJ. Civil Appeal No(s). 5347/2010 21st February, 2019 Counsel Appeared: Sanjay Jain, ASG, Rupesh Kumar, Arjun Garg, Devansh Srivastava, Yuvraj Sharma, Saniya Scott, Anil Katiyar, Advs., B.V. Balaram Das, AOR for the Petitioner. ORDER The appeal is allowed in terms of the …

S.C : Whether an assessee who sets up a new industry of a kind mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 80-IC of the Act and starts availing exemption of 100 per cent tax under subsection (3) of Section 80-IC (which is admissible for five years) can start claiming the exemption at the same rate of 100% beyond the period of five years on the ground that the assessee has now carried out substantial expansion in its manufacturing unit?

Supreme Court Of India Pr.CIT vs. Aarham Softronics Section 80-IC, 80-IC(3) A.K. Sikri, S. Abdul Nazeer, M.R. Shah, JJ. Civil Appeal No(s). 1784 of 2019 (SLP (C) NO. 23172 of 2018) WITH, CA No.1785 of 2019 (SLP (C) NO. 23176 of 2018), CA No.1786 of 2019 20th February, 2019 A.K. SIKRI, J. SLP(C) Nos. 23172 of …

Kerala H.C : Whether the amount of Rs.12,49,000/- could have been assessed as an unexplained investment, especially when there was no proposal to assess it as that under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act?

High Court Of Kerala CIT vs. Amritha Cyber Park (P) Ltd Section 69 K.Vinod Chandran & Ashok Menon, JJ. ITA.No. 294 of 2010 19th February, 2019 Counsel Appeared: Jose Joseph, SC for the Petitioner.: S.Parvathi, Amicus Curiae for the Respondent. K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J.: There was none appearing for the respondent, despite the Department having taken out …

Madras H.C : When DEPB receivable is assessed as income under u/s. 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the same has to be treated as export receipts while computing deduction u/s. 80HHC since 28(iv) was not referred to in Explanation (baa) to section 80HHC

High Court Of Madras Gold Line Exports vs. ITO Section 80HHC Asst. Year 2003-2004 Dr. Vineet Kothari & C.V. Karthikeyan, JJ. Tax Case Appeal No. 542 of 2011 15th February, 2019 Counsel Appeared: M.P. Senthil Kumar for the Petitioner.: V. Pushpa, Senior Standing Counsel for the Respondent. DR. VINEET KOTHARI, J.: The Assessee has filed the …

Delhi H.C : The AO framed the scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3)

High Court Of Delhi Revolution Forever Marketing Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO Section 147, 148 Asst. Year 2009-10 S. Ravindra Bhat & Prateek Jalan, JJ. W.P.(C) 10857/2016 14th February, 2019 Counsel Appeared: S. Krishnan & Sujata Kashyap, Advocates for the Petitioner.: Ajit Sharma, Advocate for the Respondent S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (OPEN COURT) The petitioner is aggrieved …

Madras H.C : An application for stay of recovery of demand under Section 220(6)

High Court Of Madras Mrs. Kannammal vs. ITO Section 220(6) Asst. Year 2016-17 Dr. Anita Sumanth, J. W.P.No.3849 of 2019 and W.M.P.No.4278 of 2019 13th February, 2019 Counsel Appeared: S.Sathiyanarayanan for the Petitioner.: Jayapratap for the Respondent. ORDER Mr. Jayapratap, learned counsel for the respondent takes notice on behalf of the respondent. By consent of both …
Malcare WordPress Security