Tag: 358 ITR

S.C : Benefits under advance license or under duty entitlement pass book represent only hypothetical income which cannot be brought to tax by applying provisions of section 28(iv)

Supreme Court Of India CIT Vs. Excel Industries Ltd. Section : 28(iv) R.M. Lodha, Madan B. Lokur And Kurian Joseph, JJ. Civil Appeal Nos. 5195 Of 2011 And 125, 9100 & 9101 Of 2013 October 8, 2013 JUDGMENT Madan B. Lokur, J. – Leave granted in the Special Leave Petitions. 2. The question for consideration in …

Delhi H.C : Where information regarding all transactions were not subject matter of earlier reassessment proceedings and details provided fresh material for Assessing Officer to initiate second reassessment proceedings, second reassessment could not be said to be based upon mere change of opinion

High Court Of Delhi OPG Metals & Finsec Ltd. Vs. CIT Assessment Year : 2003-04 Section : 69B, 147 Sanjiv Khanna And Sanjeev Sachdeva, JJ. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8283 Of 2010 August  30, 2013 ORDER Sanjiv Khanna, J. – OPG Metals and Finsec Ltd. by this writ petition challenges reassessment notice dated 25th March, 2010 under …

Bombay H.C : Whether first proviso to section 147 specifically restricts power to reassess only in cases where assessee fails to make a return inter alia, in response to notice under section 142(1)

High Court Of Bombay Sitara Diamond (P.) Ltd. Vs. ITO, 8(3)(2) Assessment Year : 2006-07 Section : 147, 142 Mohit S. Shah, CJ. And M.S. Sanklecha, J. Writ Petition No. 2420 Of 2012 September 16, 2013 JUDGMENT M. S. Sanklecha, J. – This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the notice dated 3 May, …

Allahabad H.C : ITAT is justified in law and on facts in putting reliance on the CBDT’s circular no.786 dated 07.02.2000 whereas no cognizance has been taken of the Board’s circular No.30/2009 dated 25.03.2009. The circular clarifies the ambiguous interpretation of provisions of law. Its nature is clarificatory and is therefore, applicable retrospectively

High Court Of Allahabad CIT, Allahabad Vs. Model Exims Kanpur Assessment Year : 2007-08 Section : 195, 40(a)(i) Sunil Ambwani And Surya Prakash Kesarwani, JJ. IT Appeal Defective No. 164 Of 2011 September 10, 2013 ORDER 1. We have heard Shri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Krishna Dev Vyas appears for the respondent. …

Allahabad H.C : The communication of dismissal of the assessee’s writ petition against the proceedings initiated under section 158BC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was made to the Assessing Officer on November 9, 2009, and then the Assessing Officer could not have proceeded to take up the assessment proceedings before November 9, 2009, consequently the period of limitation was counted from such date

High Court Of Allahabad CIT VS. Drs. X-Ray & Pathology Institute (P.) Ltd. Section : 158BE, 158BC Sunil Ambwani And Surya Prakash Kesarwani, JJ. IT Appeal No. 219 Of 2013 September 5, 2013 JUDGMENT 1. We have heard Shri Sambhu Chopra, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This income-tax appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax …

Allahabad H.C : The 3rd Member order has, in reference, merely confined to the legal issue in question; whereas, no such embargo was contained in the reference order by the Ld. President ITAT, as reproduced in the order of the 3rd Member. Further it is categorically mentioned that the matter was argued by the Authorised Representative of the assessee on the merits of addition before the 3rd Member

High Court Of Allahabad Smt. Renu Aggarwal Vs. ITO -3(3), Mathura Assessment Year : 2003-04 Section : 68, 254 Sunil Ambwani And Surya Prakash Kesarwani, JJ. IT Appeal (Defective) No. 36 Of 2013 IT Appeal No. 67 Of 2013 September 2, 2013 ORDER 1. We have heard Shri Abhinav Mehrotra for the assessee- appellant. Shri Shambhu …
Malcare WordPress Security