Skip to content
taxcaselaw.comtaxcaselaw.com
  • -
Bombay H.C : Order passed by DIT(E) is beyond the scope of Sec. 263 of the I T. Act when the subject matter of revision is applicability of proviso to Sec. 2(15) and not denial of exemption u/s. 11
April 26, 2019

High Court Of Bombay CIT (Exemption) vs. Slum Rehabilitation Authority Section 2(15), 10(20), 11, 80-I,....Read More

S.C : The expenditure cannot be considered as business expenditure
April 22, 2019

Supreme Court Of India Pr.CIT vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. Asst. Year 1993-94 Abhay Manohar Sapre....Read More

Bombay H.C : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT is correct in holding the compensation received by the appellant from Oracle Global (Mauritius) Ltd. for delay in payment of proceeds of shares tendered under the open offer includible in Capital Gains as against Interest Income ?
April 19, 2019

High Court Of Bombay CIT (IT) vs. Morgan Stanley Mauritius Company Ltd. Akil Kureshi &....Read More

Delhi H.C : The petitioner has been denied approval under Section 35(1)(ii) of the Income tax Act 1961
April 8, 2019

High Court Of Delhi Manipal Academy Of Higher Education vs. Union Of India & Anr.....Read More

Madras H.C : No part of the consideration for sate was received by the appellant and same was directly paid to the Bank by the purchaser in discharge of the mortgage amount and therefore no capital gains arises in the hands of the appellant
April 3, 2019

High Court Of Madras D. Zeenath vs. ITO Section 48 Asst. Year 1995-1996 Vineet Kothari....Read More

Bombay H.C : The Hon ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in reckoning the period for long term capital gains from the date of purchase of convertible debentures instead of actual date of allotment of shares on conversion from debentures
March 27, 2019

High Court Of Bombay Kingfisher Capital Clo Ltd. vs. CIT (International Taxation) & Anr. Section....Read More

Bombay H.C : The Tribunal justified in confirming the order of the CIT(A) and directing the AO to allow exemption u/s. 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the assessee is not wholly or substantially financed by the Govt. in view of explanation to sub section (1) of section 14 of the Comptroller and Auditor General (Duties, Powers and Conditions of Services) Act, 1971 as the total Govt. grant during the year is less that 75% of the total expenditure of the assessee
March 26, 2019

High Court Of Bombay The Director Of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. TATA Institute Of Social....Read More

S.C : The Tribunal came to the conclusion that prior to the insertion of the expression “suo motu” with effect from 1 April 2008 in Section 142(2C), the assessing officer had no jurisdiction to extend time for the submission of the report of an auditor appointed under sub section (2A)
March 26, 2019

Supreme Court Of India CIT vs. Ram Kishan Dass Section 142(2A), 142(2C) Dr. Dhananjaya Y.....Read More

Delhi H.C : Whether the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that assumption of jurisdiction by the CIT, under Section 263 of the Act, was illegal?
March 20, 2019

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Sunil Lamba Section 55(2)(a), 263 Asst. Year 1995-96 S.....Read More

Delhi H.C : The Assessee had paid compensation amount “once and for all to repurchase the property” and this was “in fact a sale consideration and cannot be allowed as business expenditure.”
March 20, 2019

High Court Of Delhi Gopal Das Estates & Housing Pvt. Ltd. & ORS. vs. CIT....Read More

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • …
  • 583
Copyright 2019 © taxcaselaw.com
  • Subscribe
  • Login