Tag: 375 ITR

Madras H.C : the Appellate Tribunal was right in setting aside the orders of the lower authorities and decide the issue in favour of the assessee, even though interest under Section 244A has not been granted on the refund of Rs.6,52,517/- which is only consequential to the credit given under Section 115JAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961

High Court Of Madras CIT, Tamil Nadu-I, Madras vs. Ambattur Clothing Ltd. Section : 244A, 115JAA Assessment year : 1998-99 R. Sudhakar And Ms. K.B.K. Vasuki, JJ. Tax Case (Appeal) No. 1468 Of 2007 June 1, 2015 JUDGMENT R. Sudhakar, J. – This Tax Case (Appeal) filed by the Revenue as against the order of the …

Delhi H.C : the period for which the assessee was in India involuntarily on account of his passport having been impounded is not to be counted for purposes of Section 6(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act so as to hold him entitled to be a non-resident

High Court Of Delhi CIT (C) –I vs. Suresh Nanda Section 6 Assessment Years 2007-08 And 2008-09 S. Ravindra Bhat And R.K. Gauba, JJ. IT Appeal Nos. 715, 722 & 723 Of 2014 C.M. No. 19243 Of 2014 May 27, 2015 ORDER R.K. Gauba, J. – These three appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax …

Delhi H.C : Payments made by the assessee to the non- residents are not fee for technical services within the meaning of Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 so as to oblige the assessee to deduct tax at source under Section 195 of the Act from such payments

High Court Of Delhi Director of Income-tax vs. Lufthansa Cargo India Section 9, 195, 201 S. Ravindra Bhat And R.K. Gauba, JJ. IT Appeal No. 95 Of 2005 May 27, 2015 ORDER 1. The following two questions of law have to be answered in this appeal, under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter …

S.C : Whether Section 80-IB(10)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 applies to a housing project approved before 31.03.2005 but completed on or after 01.04.2005?

Supreme Court Of India CIT-19, Mumbai vs. Sarkar Builders Section 80-IB A.K. Sikri And Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ. Civil Appeal Nos.4476,4477,4479,4480 To 4493 Of 2015 May 15, 2015 JUDGMENT A.K. Sikri, J. – Leave granted. 2. No doubt the assessees/respondents in all these appeals are different and even assessment years are different. But the question of …

Calcutta H.C : the learned Tribunal below committed substantial error of law by not analyzing the facts of the instant case to determine whether the income of the assessee was required to be treated as income from business and not short-term capital gain since the main motive of the assessee was to earn profit by trading on shares rather than to earn dividend by investing the same

High Court Of Calcutta CIT, Kolkata-III vs. Merlin Holding (P.) Ltd. Section : 45, 28(i) Assessment years : 2005-06 and 2006-07 Girish Chandra Gupta And Arindam Sinha, JJ. IT Appeal No.101 Of 2011 May 12, 2015 ORDER 1. The Court : The subject matter of challenge in the appeal is a judgment and order dated 18th …

Calcutta H.C : the total amount of Capital Gain for Rs.39,18,709/- as shown by the assessee in its return of income is being taken as Business Income instead of Capital Gain as claimed by the assessee

High Court Of Calcutta CIT, Kolkata-IV vs. H K Financiers (P.) Ltd. Section 45, 28(i) Assessment year 2007-08 Girish Chandra Gupta And Arindam Sinha, JJ. IT Appeal No. 117 Of 2011 May 12, 2015 ORDER 1. The subject matter of challenge in the appeal is a judgment and order dated 12th November, 2010 pertaining to the …

Calcutta H.C : the warrant of authorization has been issued on 2nd December, 1999 and the search was conducted in execution of the said warrant of authorization on 8th December, 1999 and the further alleged search on 31st January, 2000 was alleged to have been made by an officer who was not authorized under the warrant of authorization dated 2nd December, 1999, the assessment which has been made under Section 158BC of the Act on 31st January, 2002 is barred by limitation in view of Section 158BE (b) of the Act

High Court Of Calcutta Navin Kumar Agarwal vs. CIT-III, Kolkata Section : 158BE Assessment Years : 1990-91 to 2000-01 Girish Chandra Gupta And Arindam Sinha, JJ. IT Appeal No. 11 Of 2005 May 12, 2015 ORDER Girish Chandra Gupta, J. The subject matter of challenge in this appeal is a judgment and order dated 3rd September, …

Bombay H.C : the payments of wheeling and transmission charges made by the assessee to entities like Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Limited (MSETCL) and Power Grid Corporation of India Limited (PGCIL) for the use of transmission lines or other infrastructure i.e. plant, machinery and equipment could not be termed as rent under the provisions of section 194I of the Act and consequently the provisions of sections 201 and 201(1A) could not be applied

High Court Of Bombay CIT (TDS), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Section 194-I, 194-J S.C. Dharmadhikari And A.K. Menon, JJ. IT Appeal No. 336 Of 2013 May 8, 2015 JUDGMENT A.K. Menon, J. – By this appeal, the revenue has proposed the following questions to be substantial questions of law :— “(a) Whether …

Bombay H.C : what is the scope of the writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India while examining the order of the Settlement Commission?

High Court Of Bombay CIT vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission Section 245C, 69C Assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13 S.C. Dharmadhikari And A.K. Menon, JJ. Writ Petition No.1767 Of 2013 May 8, 2015 JUDGMENT S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. – Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. By this Writ Petition under …

Calcutta H.C : An application for condonation of delay of 79 days

High Court Of Calcutta CIT, Kolkata, XIX vs. Golden Corporation Services Section 260A Assessment year 2005-06 Girish Chandra Gupta And Arindam Sinha, JJ. IT Appeal No. 29 Of 2010 G.A. No. 200 Of 2010 May 8, 2015 JUDGMENT 1. The subject matter of challenge in the appeal is a judgment and order dated 12th June, 2009 …
Malcare WordPress Security