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. …

Delhi H.C : The Assessee had paid compensation amount “once and for all to repurchase the property” and this was “in fact a sale consideration and cannot be allowed as business expenditure.”

High Court Of Delhi Gopal Das Estates & Housing Pvt. Ltd. & ORS. vs. CIT & Ors. Section 24, 36(1)(iii), 154, 194-I Asst. Year 1995-96 S. Muralidhar & Sanjeev Narula, JJ. ITA 210/2003, 609/2005, 611/2005, 772/2005, 1134/2005, 400/2009, 742/2009, 55/2010, 548/2010, 581/2010, 2078/2010 20th March, 2019 Counsel Appeared: M.S. Syali, Senior Advocate with Arta Trana Panda …
Malcare WordPress Security