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, […]
Sec. 37(1)
Section 170
Delhi H.C : Did the ITAT misapply the provisions of Section 170 (2) of the Income Tax Act in the circumstances of the case, while concluding that the assessment order was not tenable for having been framed in the name of the non-existent company
High Court Of Delhi Pr.CIT-6, New Delhi vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Section 170 Assessment year 2011-12 Muralidhar And Prathiba
Income Tax Case Laws, Sec. 40A(3)
Rajasthan H. C : ITAT was perverse in restricting trading addition to only Rs.9,52,599/-out o the total trading addition of the Rs.91,37,068/-made by the AO ignoring the facts brought out by a qualified chartered Accountants in special Audit Report which is based on very reasonable analysis of the facts derived from the seized material and information provided by the assessee during Special Audit process
High Court Of Rajasthan Pr.CIT vs. Jadau Jewellers & Manufactures (P) Ltd. Section 40A(3) K.S. Jhaveri & Inderjeet Singh, JJ.
Section 30, Sec. 193C, Section 192, Section 193, Section 38
Bombay H.C : the AO in disallowing reimbursement of administrative expenses to the tune of Rs.2,39,64,463/-for non deduction of TDS u/s 40(a)(ia)
High Court Of Bombay CIT vs. ITD CEM India JV Section 30 to 38, 40(ba), 193C, 192 Asst. Year 2008-2009
Section 48, Sec. 50C
Bombay H.C : the Tribunal has seriously erred in reversing the concurrent findings of fact. If the assessee is claiming to be engaged in the business of building, development and investments in real estate, then the Assessing Officer observed that the company had entered into an agreement with M/s. Kirit City Homes. It’s development rights in a property at Vasai were sold for a total consideration of Rs.15,94,06,500/-
High Court Of Bombay CIT vs. Glowshine Builders & Developers (P) Ltd. Section 48, 50C Asst. Year 2009-2010 S. C.
Section 73, Sec. 65(104c)
CESTAT-Mumbai : Where services provided by appellant to concessionaire in form of branded store duly air-conditioned, with adequate ambience, lighting, common security, various sales schemes to attract customer, which contributed in sale of goods of concessionaire from stores of appellant were clearly supporting business operations, they would be taxable under category of business support service
CESTAT, Mumbai Bench Shoppers Stop Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-II Section 65(104c), 73 Period 1-5-2006 to 31-5-2007 Ramesh
Income Tax Case Laws, Section 10B, Section 147
Gujarat H.C : The assessee has claimed deduction u/s 10B of the Income Tax Act @ 100% of profit on its export turn over
High Court Of Gujarat Hitech Outsourcing Services vs. Pr. CIT Section 10B, 147 Akil Kureshi & Biren Vaishnav, JJ. Special
GST Caselaws, Sec. 65(19)
CESTAT-Mumbai : Where assessee-trust received certain amount as supervision charges and claimed that it was for administration of trust and to make remunerations of staff members, since no specific activity had been identified by revenue for which supervision charges had been received, said charges could not be brought to tax under category of ‘Business auxiliary service’
CESTAT, Mumbai Bench Shri Dnyaneshwar Trust Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad Period 2006-07 to 2009-10 Section 65(19) Ramesh Nair,
Section 45
Kerala H.C : Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was justified in treating the land as capital asset under Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
High Court Of Kerala Synthite Industries Ltd. vs. CIT Section 45 Asst. Year 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Antony Dominic
Section 260, Sec. 143(1), Sec. 143(2), Sec. 260A, Section 143
Allahabad H.C : Interest income, earned on FDRs made out of the unutilised fund borrowed for the setting up of the business should be reduced from the cost of the project instead of taxing it as an income from other sources”
High Court Of Allahabad Pr. CIT & Anr. vs. Sangam Power Generation Company Limited & Anr. Section 260(A), 143(2), 142(1)
