In favour of Assessee Archives

Gujarat H.C : Since there was no liability to basic tax, the question of levy of additional tax did not arise

High Court Of GujaratCommissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Ahmedabad Kaiser-I-Hind Mills Co. Ltd.Section 4, 1968FA 2 SCH. I, PART I PART F-1(B)Asst. Year 1968-69M.P. Thakkar & R.C. Mankad, JJ.IT Ref. No. 61 of 197624th March, 1981Decision in favour of AssesseeCounsel Appeared N.U. Raval with R.P. Bhatt of M/s R.P. Bhatt & Co., for the Revenue : …

Section 281 Attachment Order Void if Notice to Transferee Not Given: Gujarat High Court

The judgment of the court was delivered by MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH J- By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for appropriate writ, direction and order to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 21.09.2011 passed by the respondent no.1, by which, the respondent no.1 has …

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 …

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, …

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 …

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 …

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 …

Madras H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding the amount received towards Capital Subsidy from M/s. Royal Sun and Alliance Pic, for infusion of additional capital by the appellant in the joint venture company as per the terms of Letter of Intent, dated 05.04.2000 is revenue receipt chargeable to tax?

High Court Of Madras Sundaram Finance Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Section 41(1)(b) Asst. Year 2002-2003 Dr. Vineet Kothari & C. V. Karthikeyan, JJ. Tax Case Appeal No. 159 of 2009 6th March, 2019 Counsel Appeared: R. Vijayaraghavan for the Appellant.: T. Ravikumar for the Respondent DR. VINEET KOTHARI, J. 1. This Tax Case …

Madras H.C : The Internal Rate Return (IRR) method is the appropriate method of income recognition in hire purchase transaction as against the Eguated Sum (ESM) method regularly followed by the Appellant

High Court Of Madras Sundaram Finance Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 Dr. Vineet Kothari & C. V. Karthikeyan, JJ. Tax Case Appeal No. 158 of 2009 5th March, 2019 Counsel Appeared: R. Vijayaraghavan for the Appellant.: T.R. Ravikumar for the Respondent DR. VINEET KOTHARI, J. 1. The present Appeal was admitted by the Co-ordinate …

taxcaselaw.com

Tag: In favour of Assessee

Gujarat H.C : Since there was no liability to basic tax, the question of levy of additional tax did not arise

Section 281 Attachment Order Void if Notice to Transferee Not Given: Gujarat 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

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

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?

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.”

Madras H.C : The Internal Rate Return (IRR) method is the appropriate method of income recognition in hire purchase transaction as against the Eguated Sum (ESM) method regularly followed by the Appellant