Section 281 Attachment Order Void if Notice to Transferee Not Given: Gujarat High Court
Add to cart Uncategorized Pay for This Post Rated 0 out of 5 ₹100.00 Add to cart Buy this post
Section 281
Income Tax Case Laws
All decisions from High Courts and Supreme Court including Authority on Advance Ruling are published here
Sec. 2(15), Sec. 10(20), Section 11, Section 143, Section 263, Section 80-I
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
Add to cart Uncategorized Pay for This Post Rated 0 out of 5 ₹100.00 Add to cart Buy this post
Income Tax Case Laws
S.C : The expenditure cannot be considered as business expenditure
Supreme Court Of India Pr.CIT vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. Asst. Year 1993-94 Abhay Manohar Sapre & Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. Civil
Income Tax Case Laws
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 ?
High Court Of Bombay CIT (IT) vs. Morgan Stanley Mauritius Company Ltd. Akil Kureshi & Sarang V. Kotwal, JJ. Income
Sec. 10(35), Sec. 10(23C), Sec. 10(23C)(vi), Sec. 139(1), Sec. 35(1)(ii), Sec. 43(4), Section 11, Section 12, Section 139, Section 28, Section 288, Section 35, Section 41
Delhi H.C : The petitioner has been denied approval under Section 35(1)(ii) of the Income tax Act 1961
High Court Of Delhi Manipal Academy Of Higher Education vs. Union Of India & Anr. S. Ravindra Bhat & Prateek
Section 48
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
High Court Of Madras D. Zeenath vs. ITO Section 48 Asst. Year 1995-1996 Vineet Kothari & C. V. Karthikeyan, JJ.
Section 111, Section 47, Section 49
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
High Court Of Bombay Kingfisher Capital Clo Ltd. vs. CIT (International Taxation) & Anr. Section 111, 49(2A), 47(xa) S. C.
Sec. 10(23C)
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
High Court Of Bombay The Director Of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. TATA Institute Of Social Science Section 10(23C)(iiiab) and Section
Sec. 142(2A)
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)
Supreme Court Of India CIT vs. Ram Kishan Dass Section 142(2A), 142(2C) Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud & Hemant Gupta, JJ.
Section 55, Section 263
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?
High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Sunil Lamba Section 55(2)(a), 263 Asst. Year 1995-96 S. Muralidhar & Sanjeev Narula, JJ.
