Tag: In favour of Matter remanded

S.C : The expenditure cannot be considered as business expenditure

Supreme Court Of India Pr.CIT vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. Asst. Year 1993-94 Abhay Manohar Sapre & Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. Civil Appeal No. 4026 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.1153 of 2018) 22nd April, 2019 Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Leave granted. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 17.07.2017 passed by the …

S.C : Whether any amount of sugarcane purchase price paid by the assessee-society to its members/non-members above the SMP determined under Clause 3 of the Control Order, 1966, may be paid as per the price determined by the State Government under Clause 5A of the Control Order, 1966, can be said to be the sharing of profit and therefore is to be included in the return of income?

Supreme Court Of India CIT vs. Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd. Section 40A(3) Asst. Year 1998-99 A. K. Sikri, S. Abdul Nazeer & M.R. Shah, JJ. Civil Appeal No. 8890 OF 2012, 2485 OF 2019, 2484 OF 2019, 2482 OF 2019, 2483OF 2019, 2486 OF 2019 5th March, 2019 M. R. SHAH, J. Leave granted in all …

Madras H.C : Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in remitting the case to the file of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) with a direction to consider the additional ground raised by the assessee with regard to non issue of notice under Section 143(2) by the Assessing Officer before completion of assessment without considering the circumstantial evidence, under which, the Assessing Offi er ould not issue notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act ?

High Court Of Madras Pr. CIT Central vs. J Jay Tv Pvt. Ltd. Section 142(1), 144 Asst. Year 1995-96 T.S. Sivagnanam & N.Sathish Kumar, JJ. Tax Case Appeal No. 102 of 2019 30th January, 2019 Counsel Appeared: T.R.Senthil Kumar, K.G. Usha Rani for the Petitioner. T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J. This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A …

Allahabad H.C : Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT has erred in law and fact by not setting aside the issue of addition of Rs. 3,38,72,852/-on non-genuine purchases to the file of the CIT(A) while the learned ITAT quashed the direction of CIT(A) on the same especially in view of the fact that the ITAT is the ultimate fact finding authority, it should have either settled the issue on the basis of material on record or set aside the matter to the CIT(A) for deciding within the powers vested in it?

High Court Of Allahabad Pr.CIT vs. Meerut Roller Flour Mills (P) Ltd. Section 143(3) Asst. Year 2009-10 Bharati Sapru & Piyush Agrawal, JJ. Income Tax Appeal No. -284 of 2017 17th January, 2019 Counsel Appeared: Manu Ghildyal, Counsel for the Petitioner.: Suyash Agarwal for the Respondent PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J. The present appeal has been filed under …

Punjab & Haryana H.C : The expenses incurred by the trust are not in consonance with the objects of the trust and without any essence of rendering services, for which it was formed

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana CIT (Exemptions) vs. Tara Ripu Damanpal Trust Section 12AA Ajay Kumar Mittal & Avneesh Jhingan, JJ. ITA-196-2016 20th October, 2018 Counsel Appeared: Denesh Goyal, Sr. Standing Counsel for the Petitioner.: None for the Respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the revenue under Section 260A …

Madras H.C : The assessee under Section 264 with further direction to the Assessing Officer to treat the lands in question as non-agricultural in nature as capital assets, in the hands of the assessee, exigible to capital gain tax.

High Court Of Madras Pallavarajha vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Anr. Section 2(14), 147, 264 Asst. Year 2008-09 K. Ravichandrabaabu, J. W.P.No.1843 of 2018 and WMP Nos.2292 and 2293 of 2018 26th September, 2018 Counsel Appeared: M.V.Swaroop for the Petitioner.: A.P.Srinivas, Senior Standing Counsel (I.T) fo the Respondent. ORDER 1. The petitioner is aggrieved against …

Delhi H.C : Whether assessee was right in reallocating expenditure/income on account of royalty from Jammu Unit to Corporate Division?

High Court Of Delhi Pr. CIT vs. Montage Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Section 80-IB, 153A Asst. Year 2005-06 & 2006-07 Sanjiv Khanna & Chander Shekhar, JJ. ITA 892/2016, 893/2016, 894/2016, 895/2016 6th September, 2018 Counsel Appeared: Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate for the Petitioner.: M. P. Rustogi and Manu K. Giri, Advocates for the Respondent SANJIV KHANNA, J. These …

S.C : Whether the export house premium received by the assessee is includible in the “profits of the business” of the assessee while computing the deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961?

Supreme Court Of India CIT vs. Carpet India Section 80HHC, 28 Asst. Year 2001-2002 R. K. Agrawal & Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ. Civil Appeal No. 4590 OF 2018, 4601 OF 2018, 4602 OF 2018, 4591 OF 2018, 4597 OF 2018, 4599 OF 2018, 4592 27th April, 2018 R. K. AGRAWAL, J. Leave granted. The above batch …

Gujarat H.C : Where AA had imposed penalty upon assessee and AC had dismissed appeal of assessee on ground that it had not deposited amount of pre deposit and Tribunal having found that assessee had deposited pre deposit amount decided penalty issue on merits, Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide penalty issue on merits by itself

High Court Of Gujarat State of Gujarat Vs. Hitarth Corporation Section 107 Akil Kureshi And B.N. Karia, Jj. Tax Appeal Nos. 836 & 837 Of 2017 Civil Application (Oj) Nos. 738 & 739 Of 2017 February 15, 2018 ORDER Akil Kureshi, J. – These appeals arise in common background. We may record facts from Tax Appeal …

S.C : To attract section 2(22)(e), a ‘shareholder’ has only to be a person who is beneficial owner of shares; he need not necessarily be a registered shareholder; matter referred to CJI

Supreme Court Of India National Travel Services Vs. CIT, Delhi, VIII Section 2(22) R.F. Nariman And Navin Sinha, JJ. Civil Appeal Nos. 2068 To 2071 Of 2012 & 837 Of 2018 January Â 18, 2018 JUDGMENT R.F. Nariman, J.– Leave granted. 2. The present appeals raise an interesting question as to the correct interpretation of Section 2(22)(e) …