Category: Section 254

Punjab & Haryana H.C : Whether the IT AT has erred in passing the impugned order after going beyond the jurisdiction and is to that extent bad in law

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana CIT (Exemptions) vs. Baba Amarnath Educational Society Section 254(1) Ajay Kumar Mittal, & Avneesh Jhingan, JJ. ITA No.232 of 2016 25th October, 2018 Counsel Appeared: Denesh Goyal, Sr. Standing Counsel for the Petitioner.: Pankaj Jain, Sr. Adv., Sachin Bhardwaj, Adv. for the Respondent. AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.: The revenue has filed …

Bombay H.C : The Appellant does not have a Permanent Establishment in India and instead setting aside the order of the CIT (A)

High Court Of Bombay Co-Operative Centrale Reiffeisen-Boereleenbank B. A. vs. Deputy Commissioner (International Taxation) Of Income Tax Section 254(2), Article 5 (5) of DTAA Asst. Year 2002-2003, 2003-2004 & 2005-2006 S. C. Dharmadhikari & B. P. Colabawalla, JJ. Income Tax Appeal No. 1198 OF 2015, 260 OF 2016, 264 OF 2016 29th August, 2018 Counsel Appeared: …

Gujarat H.C : The assessee has raised one additional ground contending that the profits u/s. 115JB ought to be computed after deducting the deduction u/s 54EC

High Court Of Gujarat Meteor Satellite Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO Section 54EC, 115JB, 254 Akil Kureshi & B.N. Karia R/Special Civil Application No. 3474 of 2002 16th April, 2018 Counsel appeared: Pramthesh D Dave for the Petitioner. AKIL KURESHI, J. Petitioner has challenged a notice dated 13.02.2018 issued by the respondent-Assessing Officer seeking to rectify an …

Delhi H.C : Where assessee accepted reduced quantum of disallowance under section 14A granted by Commissioner (Appeals) but when revenue filed appeal before Tribunal, assessee filed cross-objection after delay of over four years completely denying liability under section 14A, said delay was not to be condoned

High Court Of Delhi Jubilant Securities (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT Section : 254, 14A S. Ravindra Bhat And A.K. Chawla, JJ. IT Appeal Nos. 1000,1001,1014 Of 2017 Cm Nos. 41760, 41761 & 41800 Of 2017 January 10, 2018 ORDER 1. The assessee/appellant urges that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) fell into error in declining to …

Madhya Pradesh H.C : Where assessee had filed an application under section 254(2) but period of limitation for which assessee was entitled i.e. four years, was curtailed to six months by virtue of amendment in section 254(2), since existing right to file application had been extinguished with retrospective effect in case of assessee by shortening limitation period, application preferred by assessee should not have been dismissed by Tribunal

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. Vs. Union of India Section 254 Assessment year 2010-11 S.C. Sharma And Alok Verma, Jj. Writ Petition No. 4144 Of 2017 October  9, 2017  ORDER S.C. Sharma, J. – The petitioner before this Court, District Central Co- operative Bank Limited, District Raisen through its Manager, has filed …

Himachal Pradesh H.C : Where no inquiry was conducted by Assessing officer in passing assessment order after accepting revised return filed by assessee, Commissioner was well within his power under section 263 to direct fresh assessment

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh Virbhadra Singh (HUF) Vs. Pr.CIT Section 263, 254 Assessment year 2010-2011 Sanjay Karol, Actg CJ. And Sandeep Sharma, J. IT Appeal No. 4 Of 2017 October 5, 2017 JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, ACTG, CJ. – By way of present appeal, so filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter …

Delhi H.C : The assessment proceedings had to necessarily be completed by the AO within the time limit specified in Section 153 (2A) of the Act. Inasmuch as the AO failed to do so, the impugned notice dated 14th September 2015 issued by the AO and all proceedings consequential thereto including the order dated 2nd December 2015 passed by the AO are hereby set aside.

High Court Of Delhi Nokia India Private Limited vs. DCIT Section 144-C, 143(3), 254 Asst. Year 2007-08 S. Muralidhar & Prathiba M. Singh, JJ. W.P. (C) No. 1773/2016 21st September, 2017 Counsel appeared: Vikas Srivastava, Jatinder Pal Singh, Sumit Mangal and Kanika Jain, Advocates for the Petitioner.: Sanjay Jain, ASG with N. P. Sahni and Rahul …

Madras H.C : the Tribunal was right in directing the AO to consider the claim made under Section 80IB(10) even though the assessee did not make any such claim in the return of income filed

High Court Of Madras CIT, Chennai vs. Abhinitha Foundation (P.) Ltd. Assessment year 2011-12 Section 254 Rajiv Shakdher And R. Suresh Kumar, JJ. T.C.(A) No. 811 Of 2016 June  6, 2017 JUDGMENT Background facts: Rajiv Shakdher, J. – This is an appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) by …
Malcare WordPress Security