taxcaselaw.com - Page 4 of 2739

S.C : The respondent-assesse (Bank) was entitled to claim deduction under Section 35-D

Supreme Court Of India Pr.CIT vs. Yes Bank Ltd. Section 260A, 35D Asst. Year 2007-2008 Abhay Manohar Sapre & Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. Civil Appeal No. 3148 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.7118 of 2018) 15th March, 2019 Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order …

Madras H.C : Whether the expenditure claimed by the Assessee is to be treated as Revenue Expenditure or Capital Expenditure

High Court Of Madras Hanon Automotive Systems India Private Limited (Previously Known As M/S.Visteon Automotive Systems India Private Limited) Represented By Its Authorised Signatory Mr.B. Swaminathan vs. DCIT Section 147, 148, 260A Asst. Year 2011-2012 Dr. Vineet Kothari & C.V.Karthikeyan, JJ. W.A.Nos.830 and 835 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.6495 of 2019 14th March, 2019 Counsel Appeared: N.V.Balaji …

Madras H.C : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in confirming the assessment of Rs.58,60,105/- as income of the appellant, invoking Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act?

High Court Of Madras West Asia Exports & Imports (P) Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Section 23, 41, 41(1), 260A Asst. Year 2003-04 Dr. Vineet Kothari & C.V.Karthikeyan, JJ. Tax Case Appeal No.302 of 2008 11th March, 2019 Counsel Appeared: M.P. Senthil Kumar for the Petitioner.: M.Swaminathan, Senior Standing Counsel for the Respondent. DR. …

Bombay H.C : Petitioner has also challenged notices for prosecution issued by the competent authority under Section 276CC

High Court Of Bombay Umesh D. Ganore & Anr. vs. Pr.CIT & ANR. Section 139, 183, 182, 276CC Asst. Year 2011-12 Akil Kureshi & M. S. Sanklecha, JJ. Writ Petition No. 14709 OF 2018, 14710 OF 2018 8th March, 2019 Counsel Appeared: Mihir Naniwadekar with Rohan Deshpande and Alisha Pinto for the Petitioner.: Sham Walve for …

Madras H.C : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in not appreciating that the market value of the library materials that were available as on 01.04.1981 has to be estimated and thereafter indexation as provided u/s. 48 had to be allowed on such market value, while computing the capital gains on sale of library containing antique materials ?

High Court Of Madras Vallikannu Nagarajan And Sivagami Roja Muthiah vs. The DCIT Section 48 Asst. Year 1995-96 to 1999-2000 Dr. Vineeth Kothari & C.V. Karthikeyan, JJ. T.C. Nos.735 to 737 of 2009 7th March, 2019 Counsel Appeared: M.P. Senthil Kumar for the Petitioner.: M. Swaminathan, Standing Counsel, Premalatha, Jr. Standing. Counsel for the Respondent. DR. …