Tag: 378 ITR

S.C : Whether Rs. 12,24,700/- claimed as revenue expenditure by the Association of persons which was constituted by the three partners of the erstwhile firm, MGBW, can be allowed as permissible deduction in the hands of the said Association of persons under Section 37 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, as being laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the said Association of Persons?

Supreme Court Of India Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works vs. CIT, Mysore Section : 37(1), 32, 43(3), 260A Madan B. Lokur And S.A. Bobde, JJ. Civil Appeal Nos. 10547-10548 Of 2011 October 15, 2015 JUDGMENT Madan B. Lokur, J. – These appeals are directed against a judgment and order dated 23rd December, 2010 passed by the Division …
Read More...

Delhi H.C : The ITAT affirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax [‘CIT (A)’] quashing the penalty imposed on the Assessee, JKD Capital and Finlease Limited, under Section 271-E of the Act

High Court Of Delhi PCIT-5 vs. JKD Capital & Finlease Ltd. Section : 271E Dr. S.Muralidhar And Vibhu Bakhru, JJ. IT Appeal No. 780 Of 2015 October 13, 2015 ORDER 1. This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) is directed against the impugned order dated 27th March 2015 …
Read More...

Delhi H.C : Whether provision for transit breakages has a scientific basis or is contingent in nature and as such is not an allowable deduction while computing the total income of the Assessees. The Assessment Years (AYs’) involved in the present appeals are AYs 2001-02 to 2004-05

High Court Of Delhi Seagram Distilleries (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT-III, New Delhi Assessment Years : 2001-02 To 2004-05 Section : 37(1) S. Muralidhar And Vibhu Bakhru, JJ. Income Tax Appeal Nos. 898, 899, 900 & 901 Of 2009 And 237 Of 2015 October 6, 2015 JUDGMENT Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. – These five appeals under Section …
Read More...

Bombay H.C : CBDT is directed to forthwith issue the order/notification under Section 119 of the Income Tax Act and extend the due date for E-filing of the Income Tax Returns in respect of the assessee who are required to file return of income by 30th September, 2015 to 31st October, 2015

High Court of Bombay The Chamber Of Tax Consultants, Mumbai vs. Union Of India Section : 139, 119 M.S. Sanklecha And G.S. Kulkarni, JJ. Writ Petition (L) No. 2764 Of 2015 September 30, 2015 ORDER 1. The order has been dictated in the open Court which is in the process of being transcribed. However, due to …
Read More...

Gujarat H.C : Having regard to the controversy involved in the present case and the urgency of the matter as discussed hereinafter, the court has heard the matter finally

High Court Of Gujarat All Gujarat Federation Of Tax Consultants vs. Central Board Of Direct Taxes & 1 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Section : 139, 119 Ms. Harsha Devani And A.G. Uraizee, JJ. Special Civil Application No. 15075 Of 2015 September 29, 2015 JUDGMENT Ms. Harsha Devani, J. – Rule. Mrs. Mauna Bhatt, learned senior standing …
Read More...

Punjab & Haryana H.C : Has any assessee in this category filed the return before 7th August 2015? If yes, whether the assessee is required to file fresh return after the format of audit report has been prescribed by 7th August, 2015, as Form No.4 was available on 1st August 2015, Form No.5 was available on 2.8.2015 and Form No.6 was available on 7th August 2015?

High Court Of Punjab And Haryana Vishal Garg vs. Union Of India Assessment Year : 2015-16 Section : 139, 119 Ajay Kumar Mittal And Ramendra Jain, JJ. CWP No. 19770 Of 2015 September 29, 2015 ORDER Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. – The petitioners impugn the Press Release dated 9.9.2015, Annexure P.1 whereby the respondents have taken …
Read More...

AAR : Whether in the stated facts and circumstances of the case and the relevant provisions of Income Tax Act read with Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between Government of India and People’s Republic of China, the amount of service fee received/receivable by the applicant from Usha International Limited in terms of Agreement dated 16.11.2012 for providing services in connection with procurement of goods by Usha International Limited from vendors in China and other related services provided in China is taxable in India and the applicant is liable to pay tax thereon in India?

Authority For Advance Rulings (Income Tax), New Delhi Guangzhou Usha International Ltd., In Re Section : 9 Justice V.S. Sirpurkar, Chairman And A.K. Tewary, Member (Revenue) A.A.R. No. 1508 Of 2013 September 28, 2015 RULING A.K Tewary, Member (Revenue) – The applicant is a company registered under the laws of People’s Republic of China. The share …
Read More...

Delhi H.C : Is the impugned decision of the ITAT justified and correct inasmuch as it holds that the reopening of assessment of the petitioner was not in accordance with law

High Court Of Delhi CIT– II vs. Multiplex Trading & Industrial Co. Ltd. Assessment Year : 2001-02 Section : 68, 147 Dr. S.Muralidhar And Vibhu Bakhru, JJ. IT Appeal No. 356 Of 2013 September 22, 2015 ORDER Vibhu Bakhru, J. – This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereafter the ‘Act’) has been …
Read More...

S.C : Whether, for the purposes of Wealth Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), the market value of the vacant land belonging to the assessee should be taken at the price which is the maximum compensation payable to the assessee under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1962?

Supreme Court Of India S.N. Wadiyar vs. CWT, Karnataka Assessment Years : 1977-1978 To 1986-1987 Section : 7 A.K. Sikri And Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ. Civil Appeal Nos. 6873 – 6882 & 7377-7378 Of 2005, 1338 Of 2006 And 7251 Of 2015 September 21, 2015 JUDGMENT A.K. Sikri, J. – Leave granted in SLP(C) No. 18960 …
Read More...
Malcare WordPress Security