In favour of Assessee (Partly) Archives

Bombay H.C : The petition passed by the Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO” for short) under Section 92CA(3)

High Court Of Bombay Times Global Broadcasting Company Ltd. vs. Union Of India & Ors. Section 92CA(1) Asst. Year 2015-16 Akil Kureshi & Sarang V. Kotwal, JJ. Writ Petition No. 3386 OF 2018 15th March, 2019 Counsel Appeared: Jehangir Mistri, Sr. Counsel a/w Harsh Kapadia for the Petitioner.: P. C. Chhotaray a/w P.A. Narayanan for the …

Kerala H.C : Whether the expenditure incurred insofar as carrying out repairs of the office of the assessee should be a revenue expenditure or a capital expenditure

High Court Of Kerala South India Corporation Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax And Anr. Section 41(1), 80-IA and CBDT Circular No.1/2016 Asst. Year 2002-03, 2003-04 K.Vinod Chandran & Ashok Menon, JJ. ITA.No. 74 of 2008, ITA.No. 75 of 2008 7th January, 2019 I.T.A.Nos. 74 of 2008 and 75 of 2008 A common question arise …

Madras H.C : The sale of land/property was correctly subjected to capital gains taxation in terms of Section 50 of the Act as against the computation reported as per Section 45 read with Section 48

High Court Of Madras Jaidayal Prannath Kapur vs. ITO Asst. Year 2004-05 Section 50, 73(1) T.S. Sivagnanam & V.Bhavani Subbaroyan, JJ. Tax Case Appeal No. 143 of 2009 18th September, 2018 Counsel appeared: A.S. Sriraman for the Petitioner.: M.Swaminathan for the Respondent. T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J. The Revenue has preferred this appeal challenging the o der dated …

Gujarat H.C : The petitions is the non-return of the fixed deposit receipts and the jewellery seized during the search conducted under Section 132

High Court Of Gujarat Sandeep Raghunath Gupta vs. DCIT Section 132 R/Special Civil Application No. 2017 of 2018 With R/Special Civil Application No. 2022 of 2018 M. R. Shah & A. Y. Kogje, JJ. 25th June, 2018 Counsel Appeared: Ravish D Bhatt for the Petitioner.: Mauna M Bhatt for the Respondent M. R. SHAH, J. RULE. …

Kerala H.C : The petitioner that he was residing in Abu Dhabi for more than 20 years and that he was undergoing medical treatments in Abu Dhabi under a health insurance cover

High Court Of Kerala Mailakkattu Varghese Uthup vs. Pr. CIT Section 220, 179, 230 P. B. Suresh Kumar, J. W.P.(C).No. 10675 of 2018-H 11th June, 2018 Counsel appeared: Preetha S.Nair Adv. for the Petitioner JUDGMENT Exts.P8 and P13 orders issued under Sections 230 and 179, respectively of the Income Tax Act (â€œthe Actâ€), are under challenge …

Kerala H.C : The investment is from its own funds; the Revenue concludes that it is from the borrowed funds. What is the nature of assessee’s investment: revenue or capital

High Court Of Kerala Muthoot Finance Ltd. vs. JCIT Section 36(1), 143(3), 148 Asst. Year 2006-07 Antony Dominic ACJ & Dama Seshadri Naidu, J. ITA No. 27 of 2015 11th January, 2018 Counsel appeared: P. Balakrishnan Advs. Mohan Pulikkal, P.P. Narayanan, K.S. Menon for the Petitioner.: Jose Joseph, Adv. for the Respondent DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J. …

Kerala H.C : The claim for deduction made in the return is disallowed, whether the assessee is entitled to make an alternate plea by way of mere submission before the Assessing Officer, especially when the statute interdicts even a revision, as per Sub-section (5) of Section 139, after one year from the relevant assessment year or completion of ass ssment, whichever is earlier

High Court Of Kerala CIT vs. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. Section 37, 80G, 80G(2), 80G(2)(a)(iv), 80G(5), 139(5) Asst. Year 2004-05 K. Vinod Chandran & Ashok Menon, JJ. ITA.No. 96 of 2010 30th May, 2018 Counsel Appeared: Jose Joseph, SC for the Income Tax.: P. Benny Thomas, P. Gopinath, K. John Mathai, E.K. Nandakumar for the Respondent. …

Gujarat H.C : the appellant would not be entitled to benefit of deduction under section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 since the construction of the flats for personal use was completed before the sale of the capital asset

High Court Of Gujarat Ushaben Jayantilal Sodhan vs. ITO Section 54F, 2(47) Asst. Year . 2009-10 Akil Kureshi & B. N. Karia, JJ. R/TAX APPEAL NO. 393 Of 2014 1st May, 2018 Â Counsel appeared: JP shah senior advocate WITH Manish J Shah for the Petitioner.: M.R. Bhatt Senior Advocate WITH Mauna M Bhatt for the Respondent …

Madras H.C : Whether the assessment order passed by the Income Tax Officer under Section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, invoking Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, (hereinafter referred to as “the I.T. Act”) after issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act is bad in law and is void ab initio on account of the failure to follow the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer, (2002) 125 Taxman 963 (SC) to the effect that on receipt of objection given by the assessee, to the notice under Section 148, the Assessing Officer is bound to dispose of the objections by passing a speaking order, is the core issue raised in this intra court appeal for our adjudication

High Court Of Madras Home Finders Housing Ltd. vs. ITO Section 147, 148 K. K. Sasidharan & R. Subramanian, JJ. W.A. No. 463 OF 2017 25th April, 2018 Reassessmentâ€”Non-disposal of objectionsâ€”Validityâ€”Limitationâ€”Assessee was real estate promoterâ€”AO was of view that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessmentâ€”AO therefore decided to invoke section 147 and issued notice Counsel …

Madras H.C : The Tax Recovery Officer will not have the jurisdiction to declare the transaction that according to him falls under Section 281

High Court Of Madras D.S. Senthilvel vs. Tax Recovery Officer Section 156 Asst. Year 2005-06 to 2011-12 G.R.Swaminathan, J. W.P (MD) Nos.2932 to 2939 of 2018 And W.M.P (MD) Nos.3088 to 3101 of 2018 7th March, 2018 Counsel Appeared: R.Srinivasan for the Petitioner. : S.Srimathy Standing Counsel for the Respondent. ORDER: One S.Rajendran proprietor of Inland …

taxcaselaw.com

Tag: In favour of Assessee (Partly)

Bombay H.C : The petition passed by the Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO” for short) under Section 92CA(3)

Kerala H.C : Whether the expenditure incurred insofar as carrying out repairs of the office of the assessee should be a revenue expenditure or a capital expenditure

Madras H.C : The sale of land/property was correctly subjected to capital gains taxation in terms of Section 50 of the Act as against the computation reported as per Section 45 read with Section 48

Gujarat H.C : The petitions is the non-return of the fixed deposit receipts and the jewellery seized during the search conducted under Section 132

Kerala H.C : The petitioner that he was residing in Abu Dhabi for more than 20 years and that he was undergoing medical treatments in Abu Dhabi under a health insurance cover

Kerala H.C : The investment is from its own funds; the Revenue concludes that it is from the borrowed funds. What is the nature of assessee’s investment: revenue or capital

Gujarat H.C : the appellant would not be entitled to benefit of deduction under section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 since the construction of the flats for personal use was completed before the sale of the capital asset

Madras H.C : The Tax Recovery Officer will not have the jurisdiction to declare the transaction that according to him falls under Section 281