Category: Section 37

Karnataka H.C : The Distributable Surplus paid by the Respondent Assessee M/s. CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY to DIAGEO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED in pursuance of the Agreement dated 30/10/2007 between these two parties was not ‘application of income’, but an ‘allowable expenditure’ in the hands of the Respondent Assessee under Section 37 of the Ac

High Court Of Karnataka Pr. CIT & Ors. vs. Chamundi Winery And Distillery & Ors. Section 37 Asst. Year 2008-09 to 2012-13 Vineet Kothari & S. Sujatha, JJ. ITA No. 155/2016 C/W ITA No. 458/2013, 467/2015, 173/2017, 172/2017, 155/2016 25th September, 2018 Counsel appeared: E.R. Indrakumar, Sr. Counsel for E. I. Sanmathi, Advocate K.V. Aravind, Advocate …

Madras H.C : Machinery not listed in New Appendix-I Depreciation Schedule Part-III (xia) of Income Tax Rules are also eligible for depreciation @ 40%

High Court Of Madras CIT vs. Vasantha Subramanian Hospitals Private Limited Section 37(1), 40A(3) Asst. Year 2012-13 T.S. Sivagnanam & V. Bhavani Subbaroyan, JJ. T.C. No. 885 of 2016 4th September, 2018 Counsel appeared: M. Swaminathan for the Appellant.: P.Madhavan for the Respondent T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J. 1. This appeal by the Revenue is against the …

Madras H.C : Machinery not listed in New Appendix-I Depreciation Schedule Part-III (xia) of Income Tax Rules are also eligible for depreciation @ 40%

High Court Of Madras CIT vs. Vasantha Subramanian Hospitals Private Limited Section 37(1), 40A(3) Asst. Year 2012-13 T.S. Sivagnanam & V. Bhavani Subbaroyan, JJ. T.C. No. 885 of 2016 4th September, 2018 Counsel appeared: M. Swaminathan for the Appellant.: P.Madhavan for the Respondent T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J. 1. This appeal by the Revenue is against the …

Bombay H.C : The Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowance made u/s 37(1) without appreciating he facts of the case and legal matrix as clearly brought out by the AO and the CIT(A)

High Court Of Bombay Pr. CIT vs. Quest Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd. Section 260A, 37(1) Asst. Year 2008-09 M. S. Sanklecha & Sandeep K. Shinde, JJ. Income Tax Appeal No. 280 OF 2016 28th June, 2018 Counsel Appeared: N.C. Mohanty for the Petitioner.: Ajaykumar R. Singh for the Respondent PC. 1. This appeal under Section 260A …

Karnataka H.C : whether the working has been robust based on historical data, whether there is minimal reversals whether the estimates are reduced as one approaches the end of the warranty period and whether any detail assessment of the warranty provisions had been done?

High Court Of Karnataka Pr.CIT (CIT-A) And Anr. vs. Acer India Pvt. Ltd. Section 260A, 37 Vineet Kothari & S. Sujatha, JJ. ITA No. 431/2017 25th June, 2018 Counsel appeared: K.V. Aravind, Adv. for the Petitioner.: Ankur Pai, Adv. for the Respondent Dr. Vineet Kothari, J. The Revenue has filed this appeal u/s 260-A of the …

Kerala H.C : The claim for deduction made in the return is disallowed, whether the assessee is entitled to make an alternate plea by way of mere submission before the Assessing Officer, especially when the statute interdicts even a revision, as per Sub-section (5) of Section 139, after one year from the relevant assessment year or completion of ass ssment, whichever is earlier

High Court Of Kerala CIT vs. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. Section 37, 80G, 80G(2), 80G(2)(a)(iv), 80G(5), 139(5) Asst. Year 2004-05 K. Vinod Chandran & Ashok Menon, JJ. ITA.No. 96 of 2010 30th May, 2018 Counsel Appeared: Jose Joseph, SC for the Income Tax.: P. Benny Thomas, P. Gopinath, K. John Mathai, E.K. Nandakumar for the Respondent. …

Delhi H.C : Whether the payment of Rs.1 Crore for exclusive use of the trade mark “HILTON” is to be treated as capital expenditure or revenue expenditure?

High Court Of Delhi Hilton Roulunds Ltd. vs. CIT Section 37(1) Sanjiv Khanna & Prathiba M. Singh, JJ. ITA 325/2005 20th April, 2018 Counsel Appeared: Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate with Prakash Kumar & Aniket D. Aggarwal, Advocates for the Petitioner.: Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate for the Respondent PRATHIBA M. SINGH J. The short question arising in the …

Delhi H.C : The claim of the Appellant with respect to provision made for interest on overdue deposits was not acceptable until it is ascertained that the actual payment of the provision has been made to the customers or not

High Court Of Delhi Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Section 37(1) Assessment year 2009-10 Ravindra Bhat And A.K. Chawla, JJ. IT Appeal No. 57 Of 2018 CM Appl 1856 Of 2018 January  17, 2018  ORDER Admit. 1. The following questions of law arise : (i) Whether in the facts and circumstance …

Kerala H.C : Where assessee a real estate developer claimed expenditure incurred for making land suitable for sale and expenditure was supported by documents seized at time of search, benefit of presumption under section 132(4A) would be available to assessee and there would be no need for further proof under section 37, since Assessing Officer did not endeavour to carry out investigation into genuineness of expenditure made

High Court Of Kerala CIT, (Central) Kochi Vs. Damac Holdings (P.) Ltd. Section 132, 37(1) Assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 Vinod Chandran And Ashok Menon, JJ. IT Appeal Nos. 263 Of 2014 22, 51, & 114 Of 2015 December  12, 2017  JUDGMENT Vinod Chandran, J. – The facts in all the aforesaid appeals are more or less …
Malcare WordPress Security