Skip to content

taxcaselaw.com

My account

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

taxcaselaw.com

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

Sec. 37(1)

Sec. 37(1), Income Tax Case Laws, Sec. 40A(3)

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%

Avijit Das / September 4, 2018

High Court Of Madras CIT vs. Vasantha Subramanian Hospitals Private Limited Section 37(1), 40A(3) Asst. Year 2012-13 T.S. Sivagnanam & […]

Sec. 37(1), Income Tax Case Laws, Sec. 40A(3)

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%

Avijit Das / September 4, 2018

High Court Of Madras CIT vs. Vasantha Subramanian Hospitals Private Limited Section 37(1), 40A(3) Asst. Year 2012-13 T.S. Sivagnanam &

Sec. 260A, Sec. 37(1)

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)

Avijit Das / June 28, 2018

High Court Of Bombay Pr. CIT vs. Quest Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd. Section 260A, 37(1) Asst. Year 2008-09 M. S.

Income Tax Case Laws, Sec. 37(1), Section 37

Madras H.C : The expenses were capital in nature even though such expenses were incurred for ‘possible expansion’ of the existing business

Avijit Das / June 5, 2018

High Court Of Madras Tamilnadu Magnesite Ltd. vs. ACIT T. S. Sivagnanam & N. Seshasayee, JJ. T.C.(Appeal) Nos. 907 and

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?

Avijit Das / April 20, 2018

High Court Of Delhi Hilton Roulunds Ltd. vs. CIT Section 37(1) Sanjiv Khanna & Prathiba M. Singh, JJ. ITA 325/2005

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

Avijit Das / January 17, 2018

High Court Of Delhi Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Section 37(1) Assessment year 2009-10 Ravindra

Section 132, Sec. 37(1)

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

Avijit Das / December 12, 2017

High Court Of Kerala CIT, (Central) Kochi Vs. Damac Holdings (P.) Ltd. Section 132, 37(1) Assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09

Calcutta H.C : Whether since revenue had not been able to establish any defect or fault in transaction between assessee and ‘Alishan’, impugned order passed by Tribunal was to be upheld

Avijit Das / September 13, 2017

High Court Of Calcutta Pr.CIT-3, Kolkata Vs. Entrepreneurs (Calcutta) (P.) Ltd. Section 37(1) Assessment year 2005-06 Aniruddha Bose And Arindam

Delhi H.C : expenditure incurred by it for protecting the land from acquisition is revenue expenditure

Avijit Das / September 5, 2017

High Court Of Delhi CIT, Delhi-IV Vs. DLF Universal Ltd. Section 37(1) Assessment year 1975-76 Muralidhar And Prathiba M. Singh,

Delhi H.C : Where assessee was following mercantile system of accounting, liability to pay enhanced licence fee would arise in year in which demand was made by Railways or to which it related irrespective of when enhanced fee was actually paid by assessee

Avijit Das / August 18, 2017

High Court Of Delhi Jagdish Prasad Gupta Vs. CIT Section 37(1) Assessment years : 1997-98 to 2002-03, 2004-05 and 2009-10

Post pagination

1 2 … 85 Next →

Copyright © 2024 taxcaselaw.com | Powered by Astra WordPress Theme

Scroll to Top