Sec. 37(1) Archives - taxcaselaw.com

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 …

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

High Court Of Madras Tamilnadu Magnesite Ltd. vs. ACIT T. S. Sivagnanam & N. Seshasayee, JJ. T.C.(Appeal) Nos. 907 and 908 of 2007 (2018) 102 CCH 0088 ChenHC (2018) 407 ITR 0543 (Mad) Section 37(1) Asst. Year 1998-99 & 1999-2000 5th June, 2018 Counsel appeared: A. S. Sriraman for the Appellant.: S. Rajesh 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 Â 17, 2018Â 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 Â 12, 2017Â JUDGMENT Vinod Chandran, J.Â – The facts in all the aforesaid appeals are more or less …

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

High Court Of Calcutta Pr.CIT-3, Kolkata Vs. Entrepreneurs (Calcutta) (P.) Ltd. Section 37(1) Assessment year 2005-06 Aniruddha Bose And Arindam Sinha, JJ. G.A. No. 754 Of 2016 ITAT No.133 Of 2016 September 13, 2017 ORDER 1. This appeal of the Revenue originates from an order of scrutiny assessment made for the assessment year 2006-07 adding to …

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

High Court Of Delhi CIT, Delhi-IV Vs. DLF Universal Ltd. Section 37(1) Assessment year 1975-76 Muralidhar And Prathiba M. Singh, Jj. IT Appeal No. 440/2009 September Â 5, 2017 ORDER Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.Â – This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order dated 6thÂ June 2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA …

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

High Court Of Delhi Jagdish Prasad Gupta Vs. CIT Section 37(1) Assessment years : 1997-98 to 2002-03, 2004-05 and 2009-10 Muralidhar And Prathiba M. Singh, JJ. ITA Nos. 695 And 1535 Of 2010 And 711, 787, 933 To 936 Of 2011 & 424 Of 2016 Cm Nos. 6764 To 6768 Of 2012 August Â 18, 2017Â JUDGMENT …

Category: Sec. 37(1)