Tag: Bombay High Court

Bombay H.C : Order passed by DIT(E) is beyond the scope of Sec. 263 of the I T. Act when the subject matter of revision is applicability of proviso to Sec. 2(15) and not denial of exemption u/s. 11

High Court Of Bombay CIT (Exemption) vs. Slum Rehabilitation Authority Section 2(15), 10(20), 11, 80-I, 80-I(2), 143(3), 263, 263(1) Asst. Year 2009-10 Akil Kureshi & Sarang V. Kotwal, JJ. Income Tax Appeal No. 1359 OF 2016 26th March, 2019 Counsel Appeared: Suresh Kumar for the Petitioner.: S.E. Dastur, Sr. Counsel, Nishant Thakkar, Jasmin Amalsadvala, i/by Mint …
Read More...

Bombay H.C : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT is correct in holding the compensation received by the appellant from Oracle Global (Mauritius) Ltd. for delay in payment of proceeds of shares tendered under the open offer includible in Capital Gains as against Interest Income ?

High Court Of Bombay CIT (IT) vs. Morgan Stanley Mauritius Company Ltd. Akil Kureshi & Sarang V. Kotwal, JJ. Income Tax Appeal No.1835 OF 2016 19th March, 2019 Counsel Appeared: Tejveer Singh for the Petitioner.: Sunil M. Lala, Karen D’Souza, i/b India Law Alliance for the Respondent. P.C.: 1. This Appeal is filed by the Revenue, …
Read More...

Bombay H.C : The Hon ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in reckoning the period for long term capital gains from the date of purchase of convertible debentures instead of actual date of allotment of shares on conversion from debentures

High Court Of Bombay Kingfisher Capital Clo Ltd. vs. CIT (International Taxation) & Anr. Section 111, 49(2A), 47(xa) S. C. Dharmadhikari & B. P. Colabawalla, JJ. Writ Petition (St) No. 19262 OF 2018 27th March, 2019 Counsel Appeared: Porus F. Kaka, senior advocate with Divesh Chawala i/b Atul K. Jasani for the Petitioner.: Abhay Ahuja with …
Read More...

Bombay H.C : The Tribunal justified in confirming the order of the CIT(A) and directing the AO to allow exemption u/s. 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the assessee is not wholly or substantially financed by the Govt. in view of explanation to sub section (1) of section 14 of the Comptroller and Auditor General (Duties, Powers and Conditions of Services) Act, 1971 as the total Govt. grant during the year is less that 75% of the total expenditure of the assessee

High Court Of Bombay The Director Of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. TATA Institute Of Social Science Section 10(23C)(iiiab) and Section 14 of the Controller Auditor General’s (Duties, Powers and Conditions of Service) Act,1971 Asst. Year 2004-05 and 2006-07 Akil Kureshi & M.S. Sanklecha, JJ. Income Tax Appeal No. 1179 OF 2013 WITH Income Tax Appeal No(s).1322 …
Read More...

Bombay H.C : Interest income at the concessional rate as per the DTAA was not in the mind of the Assessing Officer when such queries were raised and the order of assessment was passed, one thing that cannot be denied is that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for assessment

High Court Of Bombay Precilion Holdings Limited vs. DCIT (International Taxation) Section 147, 148 Asst. Year 2011-12 Akil Kureshi & M. S. Sanklecha, JJ. Writ Petition No. 3342 OF 2018 25th February, 2019 Counsel Appeared: Jehangir Mistri, Senior Counsel a/w Madhur Agrawal i/by Atul Jasani for the Petitioner.: P.C. Chhotaray for the Respondent Akil Kureshi, J. …
Read More...

Bombay H.C : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was correct in not treating the Hospital Based Consultants (HBCs) as employees and therefore provisions of Section 192 is not applicable?

High Court Of Bombay Pr.CIT (TDS) vs. National Health & Education Society (P.D. Hinduja Hospital & Medical Research Centre) Section 3, 131, 133A, 192, 194C, 194H, 194J, 201, 201(1), 201(IA), 260A S.C.Dharmadhikari & B.P. Colabawalla, JJ. Income Tax Appeal No.105 of 2016 WITH 116 of 2016, 112 of 2016, 115 of 2016, 121 of 2016, 128 …
Read More...

Bombay H.C : Order passed by the AO under section 154 of the IT Act and confirmed by CIT(A) is rectifying the original assessment is not justify

High Court Of Bombay Pr.CIT And Anr. vs. Aristo Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. Section 154 Asst. Year 2008-09 Akil Kureshi & B.P.Colabawalla, JJ. Income Tax Appeal No. 1759 OF 2016 With Income Tax Appeal No. 1784 OF 2016 11th February, 2019 Counsel Appeared: Suresh Kumar for the Petitioner.: Ajay Kumar Rastogi, Smriti Singh, I/b Atul …
Read More...
Malcare WordPress Security