Section 3, Sec. 133A, Sec. 194C, Sec. 194H, Sec. 194J, Sec. 201(1), Sec. 201(1A), Sec. 260A, Section 131, Section 192, Section 201

Bombay H.C : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was correct in not treating the Hospital Based Consultants (HBCs) as employees and therefore provisions of Section 192 is not applicable?

High Court Of Bombay Pr.CIT (TDS) vs. National Health & Education Society (P.D. Hinduja Hospital & Medical Research Centre) Section […]

Section 80-IC

S.C : Whether an assessee who sets up a new industry of a kind mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 80-IC of the Act and starts availing exemption of 100 per cent tax under subsection (3) of Section 80-IC (which is admissible for five years) can start claiming the exemption at the same rate of 100% beyond the period of five years on the ground that the assessee has now carried out substantial expansion in its manufacturing unit?

Supreme Court Of India Pr.CIT vs. Aarham Softronics Section 80-IC, 80-IC(3) A.K. Sikri, S. Abdul Nazeer, M.R. Shah, JJ. Civil

Sec. 2(22)(E)

Bombay H.C : The Hon’ble ITAT was justified in upholding the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and thereby not sustaining the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer u/s 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that the Reserve and Surplus of lender companies viz. M/s NSN Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. and M/s KSN Trading Pvt. Ltd. exceeded the amount advanced to the assessee company thereby falling within the ambit of provision of sec. 2(22)(e)

High Court Of Bombay Pr.CIT vs. Sunjewels International Ltd. Section 2(22)(e) Asst. Year 2009-10 S. C. Dharmadhikari & B. P.

Sec. 260A, Sec. 271(1)(c ), Section 271, Section 32

Madras H.C : Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in sustaining the levy of penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act on the rejection of claim of depreciation which was surrendered in the course of the assessment proceedings and farther on the claim of certain expenses which claim was reversed in the same proceedings by the Appellant even though there was total violation of the principles of natural justice as well as the Doctrine of Fair Procedure

High Court Of Madras B. Loganathan vs. ITO Section 32, 260A, 271(1), 271(1)(c) Asst. Year 2000-01 Dr. Vineet Kothari &

Scroll to Top
Malcare WordPress Security