Income Tax Case Laws Archives

Section 281 Attachment Order Void if Notice to Transferee Not Given: Gujarat High Court

The judgment of the court was delivered by MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH J- By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for appropriate writ, direction and order to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 21.09.2011 passed by the respondent no.1, by which, the respondent no.1 has …

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

High Court Of Bombay CIT (Exemption) vs. Slum Rehabilitation Authority Section 2(15), 10(20), 11, 80-I, 80-I(2), 143(3), 263, 263(1) Asst. Year 2009-10 Akil Kureshi & Sarang V. Kotwal, JJ. Income Tax Appeal No. 1359 OF 2016 26th March, 2019 Counsel Appeared: Suresh Kumar for the Petitioner.: S.E. Dastur, Sr. Counsel, Nishant Thakkar, Jasmin Amalsadvala, i/by Mint …

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 Appeal No. 4026 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.1153 of 2018) 22nd April, 2019 Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Leave granted. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 17.07.2017 passed by the …

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 Tax Appeal No.1835 OF 2016 19th March, 2019 Counsel Appeared: Tejveer Singh for the Petitioner.: Sunil M. Lala, Karen D’Souza, i/b India Law Alliance for the Respondent. P.C.: 1. This Appeal is filed by the Revenue, …

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 Jalan, JJ. Section 10, 10(23C), 10(23C)(vi), 11, 12, 139(1), 28, 288(2), 35, 35(1), 35(1)(ii), 41, 43(4) W.P.(C) 9996/2015 8th April, 2019 Counsel Appeared: Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Vikrant Pachnand, Adv. for the Petitioner.: Vikram Jetly, Adv. …

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. T.C.A No. 2582 of 2006 3rd April, 2019 Counsel appeared: Subhang Nair Assisted, Shobana Krishnan for the Appellant.: M. Swaminathan (Senior Standing Counsel) Assisted by V.Pushpa for the Respondent C. V. KARTHIKEYAN, J. The assessee has …

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. Dharmadhikari & B. P. Colabawalla, JJ. Writ Petition (St) No. 19262 OF 2018 27th March, 2019 Counsel Appeared: Porus F. Kaka, senior advocate with Divesh Chawala i/b Atul K. Jasani for the Petitioner.: Abhay Ahuja with …

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 14 of the Controller Auditor General’s (Duties, Powers and Conditions of Service) Act,1971 Asst. Year 2004-05 and 2006-07 Akil Kureshi & M.S. Sanklecha, JJ. Income Tax Appeal No. 1179 OF 2013 WITH Income Tax Appeal No(s).1322 …

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. Civil Appeal No 3211 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No 2810 of 2012) WITH Civil Appeal No(s). 3214, 3212, 3213, 3228 26th March, 2019 DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J. Leave granted in the Special …

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. ITA 465/2003 20th March, 2019 Counsel Appeared: Ashok Manchanda, Sr. Standing Counsel, Pankaj Sinha, Adv. for the Petitioner : Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Kavita Jha, Devika Jain & Anant Mann, Advs. for the Respondent. DR. S. …

taxcaselaw.com

Category: Income Tax Case Laws

Section 281 Attachment Order Void if Notice to Transferee Not Given: Gujarat High Court

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

S.C : The expenditure cannot be considered as business expenditure

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

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

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

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)

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?