Skip to content

taxcaselaw.com

My account

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

taxcaselaw.com

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

380 ITR

Section 92, Sec. 115JB, Section 211

AAR : The investment held by the Applicant in equity shares of Dow Agrosciences India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘DAS India’) would be considered as ‘capital asset’ under section 2(14)

Avijit Das / January 11, 2016

Authority Of Advance Rulings Dow Agro Sciences Agricultural Products Ltd., In Re Section :Â 92, 115JB, 195, 211 V.S. Sirpurkar, Chairman, […]

Section 271C, Sec. 201(1A)

S.C : The short issue pertains to the assessment of penalty under Section 271-C of the Income Tax Act

Avijit Das / January 7, 2016

Supreme Court of India CIT vs. Bank Of Nova Scotia Section 271-C, 201(1A) Kurian Joseph & Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ.

Section 147, Section 148, Section 150

Allahabad H.C : The time of search and seizure operation the assessment proceedings had not started on the basis of the return filed by the assessee

Avijit Das / January 7, 2016

High Court Of Allahabad CIT vs. Hemkunt Timbers Ltd. Section 148, 147, 150 Vinod Kumar Misra & Tarun Agarwala, JJ.

Sec. 206A, Sec. 50B, Section 32, Section 43

Delhi H.C : For computing the net worth under Section 50B, Section 43(6)(c)(i)(C) is not applicable in case of slump sale of the undertaking includes the entire block of assets

Avijit Das / January 6, 2016

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Dharampal Satyapal Section 260A, 50B, 43, 32 Asst. Year 2001-02 S. Muralidhar & Vibhu

Income Tax Case Laws, Sec. 10(23C)(vi)

Allahabad H.C : Whether Hon’ble ITAT is justified in law and on facts that he has wrongly accepted the breakup of receipt of Junior High School and Senior Secondary School in the impression that it was done by A.O., contrary to the fact that it was mere submission by the assessee Society

Avijit Das / January 5, 2016

High Court Of Allahabad CIT (Exemption) vs. Chironji Lal Virendra Pal Saraswati Shiksha Parishad Section : 10 (23-C)(vi) Asst. Year

Sec. 32(1)(iia), Sec. 260A

Karnataka H.C : Additional depreciation allowed u/s. 32(1) (iia) is a onetime benefit to encourage industrialization and the relevant provisions has been construed reasonably and purposive without appreciating that the additional depreciation is allowed in the year of purchase and if in the year of purchase the assessee is eligible only for 50% depreciation, the balance 50% cannot be carried forward for the subsequent year or the claim cannot be allowed in any other year where the section 32(1) (iia) does not speak of any further depreciation except in the year of purchase

Avijit Das / January 4, 2016

High Court Of Karnataka CIT & Anr. vs. Rittal India (P) Ltd. Section 32(1)(iia), 260A Asst. Year 2010-11 N.K.Patil &

Section 131, Sec. 153A, Sec. 206A

Delhi H.C : There was no valid search since the impugned additions have been made under section 153A /143(3) of the Act without reference to any material found as a result of search

Avijit Das / December 12, 2015

High Court Of Delhi Pr. CIT vs. Matchless Glass Services Pvt. Ltd. Section 260A, 131, 153A, 143(3), 68, 132, 142(1),

Section 80-IB, Section 80-IA, Section 80HHC

S.C : the deduction allowed under one section should affect the computation of deduction under other provisions of the Act, the Legislature has expressly used words to that effect. It may be noted that sections 80HHD

Avijit Das / December 10, 2015

Supreme Court Of India Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs. Micro Labs Ltd. Section 80-IB, 80HHC, 80-IA Anil R. Dave

Income Tax Case Laws

S.C : The unabsorbed depreciation as on 1st April, 1997 can be set off against the income from any Head for the immediate Assessment Year following 1st April, 1997 and thereafter if there still is any unabsorbed depreciation the same can be set off only against the Business Income for a period of eight (08) Assessment years.

Avijit Das / December 8, 2015

Supreme Court Of India Peerless General Finance And Investment Co. Ltd. vs. CIT Ranjan Gogoi & N.V. Ramana, JJ. Special

Section 21, Sec. 21(d), Section 13, Section 195

AAR : the Penalty Amount payable pursuant to the Final Judgment/Decree of the US Court and paid to the Government of USA/US Court would be liable to tax deduction at source under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961

Avijit Das / December 1, 2015

Authority Of Advance Rulings Satyam Computer Services Ltd., In Re Section 21(d), 13(b)(2)(a), 13(b)(2)(b), 13(a), 195 V.S. Sirpurkar, Chairman, A.K.

Post pagination

1 2 … 7 Next →

Copyright © 2024 taxcaselaw.com | Powered by Astra WordPress Theme

Scroll to Top