Tag: 379 ITR

S.C : Deduction under section 80P to assessee-bank was disallowed by Commissioner (Appeals) as well as Tribunal, special leave petition filed by assessee against High Court’s order allowing reassessment proceeding, became infructuous

Supreme Court Of India Punjab State Co-Op. Agri. Dev. Bank Ltd. vs. CIT-I Section : 80P, 147 A.K. Sikri And C. Nagappan, JJ. Civil Appeal Nos. 1502 And 1503 Of 2008 November 27, 2015 ORDER 1. The appellant is engaged in the business of banking. It had been filing income tax returns claiming exemption from tax …

S.C : Deduction under section 80HHC in case of assessee firm dealing in trading and manufacturing of cycle parts, proceeds generated from sale of scrap would not be included in ‘total turnover’

Supreme Court Of India Mahavira Cycle Industries vs. CIT Section : 80HHC Jagdish Singh Khehar And Mrs. R. Banumathi, JJ. I.A. Nos. 2 & 3 Of 2015 Civil Appeal Nos. 5773 Of 2012 And 2738, 2740 & 8753 Of 2013 November 16, 2015 JUDGMENT 1. Learned counsel for the respondents acknowledges that the controversy in hand …

S.C : There is nexus between expenditure and purpose of business (which need not necessarily be business of assessee itself), revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in arm-chair of businessman or in position of Board of Directors and assume role to decide how much is reasonable expenditure having regard to circumstances of case

Supreme Court Of India Hero Cycles (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT (Central), Ludhiana Assessment Year : 1988-89 Section : 36(1)(iii) A.K. Sikri And Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ. Civil Appeal No. 514 Of 2008 November 5, 2015 JUDGMENT A. K. Sikri, J. – The present appeal preferred by the assessee pertains to the Assessment Year 1988-1989. In the …

S.C : The assessee’s payment to SICOM had not been accepted by Sales Tax Authorities, the same cannot be held to be a remission/cessation of liability u/s 41(1)(a), even though Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal had granted the liberty to the assessee to take credit for payment of sales tax after filing proper documents

Supreme Court Of India CIT, Delhi vs. Si Group India Ltd. Assessment Years : 2000-01 And 2001-02 Section : 41(1) A.K. Sikri And Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ. Civil Appeal Nos. 10873 & 10874 Of 2011 November 4, 2015 ORDER 1. By the impugned judgment dated 10.06.2010, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has decided …

Delhi H.C : The Assessee could be regarded as Assessee in default for failing to deduct tax at source in respect of payments made to AAR Aviation Trading Inc as required under Section 195

High Court Of Delhi Jet Lite (India) Ltd. vs. CIT–XVI Assessment Years : 1995-96 To 1999-2000 Section : 9, 10(15A), 195, 40(a)(i), 68, 37(1), 14A, 43B S. Muralidhar And Vibhu Bakhru, JJ. IT Appeal Nos. 204,205 Of 2002 And 128,1206 And 1209 Of 2005 And 86 Of 2011 November 4, 2015 JUDGMENT Introduction S. Muralidhar, J. …

S.C : Appeal against decision of High Court affirming impugned assessment was to be dismissed as tax effect on addition so made would be much less than prescribed limit

Supreme Court Of India Shirish Madhukar Dalvi vs. ACIT Block Period : 1989-90 To 1999-2000 Section : 268A, 158BC A.K. Sikri And Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ. CA No. 5150 Of 2007 November 3, 2015 JUDGMENT 1. By the impugned assessment, which has been upheld till the High Court, the addition of only Rs. 3.85 lakhs to …

Delhi H.C : The ITAT, was correct in deleting the addition of Rs.86 lakhs on account of cash seized from one of the employees of the assessee, namely, Shri Gopal Singh

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Sunil Aggarwal Section 158BC, 132(4) S. Muralidhar & Vibhu Bakhru, JJ. ITA 224/2003 2nd November, 2015 Counsel appeared: Raghvendra K Singh, Advocate for the Petitioner S. Muralidhar, J. This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order dated 8th August 2002 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in …

Delhi H.C : A sum of Rs. 86 lakhs seized from his employee belonged to him and it represented undisclosed income and subsequently he retracted above admission and offered an explanation that said amount was verifiable from records and books of account and Assessing Officer did not accept explanation and added said amount in income as unexplained cash credit, impugned addition was not justified

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Sunil Aggarwal Block Period : 1-4-1986 To 20-6-1996 Section : 68, 132, 158BC S. Muralidhar And Vibhu Bakhru, JJ. IT Appeal No. 224 Of 2003 November 2, 2015 ORDER S. Muralidhar, J. – This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order dated 8th August 2002 passed by the …
Malcare WordPress Security