Tag: Delhi High Court

Delhi H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to the carry forward of the loss of Rs. 31,355 under the relevant provisions of IT Act, 1961 ?

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. K.C. Kashyap Sections 72, 139(4) Asst. year 1975-76 Arijit Pasayat, C.J. & D.K. Jain, J. IT Ref. No. 189 of 1981 6th February, 2001 Counsel AppearedR.C. Pandey with Ajay Jha, for the Revenue : None, for the Assessee JUDGMENT ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.J. : At the instance of Revenue, following question …

Delhi H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that for the purpose of determining the income under the head ‘Capital gains’ the assessee was entitled to claim the previous year ending 25th Dec., 1975, under the provisions of s. 3(1) (c) ?

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Ramesh Khanna Section 3(1)(b) Asst. Year 1976-77 Arijit Pasayat, C.J. & D.K. Jain, J. IT Ref. No. 129 of 1991 4th January, 2001 Counsel Appeared Sanjiv Khanna with Ajay Jha, for the Revenue : None, for the Assessee JUDGMENT ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.J. : At the instance of the Revenue, the …

Delhi H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the interest of Rs. 73,449 paid by the assessee can be said to be the capital expenditure not deductible in the computation of the assessee’s business ?

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Sharpedge Ltd. Sections 37(1) Asst. Year 1971-72 Arijit Pasayat, C.J. & D.K. Jain, J. IT Ref. No. 161 of 1980 29th November, 2000 Counsel Appeared Ajay Jha, for the Petitioner : Sajan Narain, for the Respondent JUDGMENT ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.J. : Pursuant to the direction given by this Court, following …

Delhi H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 43,403 did not constitute entertainment expenditure within the meaning of s. 37(2B) and was therefore, not liable to be disallowed ?

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Modern Bakeries India Limited Sections 37(2B), 80J, RULE 19A(3) Asst. Year 1973-74 Arijit Pasayat, C.J. & D.K. Jain, J. IT Ref. Nos. 283 & 284 of 1981 11th January, 2001 Counsel Appeared Sanjiv Khanna with Ajay Jha, for the Revenue : None, for the Respondent JUDGMENT ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.J. : …

Delhi H.C : Whether the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that assumption of jurisdiction by the CIT, under Section 263 of the Act, was illegal?

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Sunil Lamba Section 55(2)(a), 263 Asst. Year 1995-96 S. Muralidhar & Sanjeev Narula, JJ. ITA 465/2003 20th March, 2019 Counsel Appeared: Ashok Manchanda, Sr. Standing Counsel, Pankaj Sinha, Adv. for the Petitioner : Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Kavita Jha, Devika Jain & Anant Mann, Advs. for the Respondent. DR. S. …

Delhi H.C : The Assessee had paid compensation amount “once and for all to repurchase the property” and this was “in fact a sale consideration and cannot be allowed as business expenditure.”

High Court Of Delhi Gopal Das Estates & Housing Pvt. Ltd. & ORS. vs. CIT & Ors. Section 24, 36(1)(iii), 154, 194-I Asst. Year 1995-96 S. Muralidhar & Sanjeev Narula, JJ. ITA 210/2003, 609/2005, 611/2005, 772/2005, 1134/2005, 400/2009, 742/2009, 55/2010, 548/2010, 581/2010, 2078/2010 20th March, 2019 Counsel Appeared: M.S. Syali, Senior Advocate with Arta Trana Panda …

Delhi H.C : The AO framed the scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3)

High Court Of Delhi Revolution Forever Marketing Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO Section 147, 148 Asst. Year 2009-10 S. Ravindra Bhat & Prateek Jalan, JJ. W.P.(C) 10857/2016 14th February, 2019 Counsel Appeared: S. Krishnan & Sujata Kashyap, Advocates for the Petitioner.: Ajit Sharma, Advocate for the Respondent S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (OPEN COURT) The petitioner is aggrieved …

Delhi H.C : What is an outgoing of capital and what is an outgoing on account of revenue depends on what the expenditure is calculated to effect from a practical and business poin of view rather than upon the juristic classification of the legal rights, if any, secured, employed or exhausted is the process

High Court Of Delhi ICS Systems Private Limited vs. CIT Section 143(2), 260A Asst. Year 2001-02 Sanjiv Khanna & Anup Jairam Bhambhani, JJ. INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 132/2009 10th January, 2019 Counsel appeared: A.P. Sinha, Advocate for the Petitioner.: Ashok K. Manchanda, Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL): 1. M/s ICS Systems …
Malcare WordPress Security