In favour of Revenue – taxcaselaw.com

Madras H.C : No part of the consideration for sate was received by the appellant and same was directly paid to the Bank by the purchaser in discharge of the mortgage amount and therefore no capital gains arises in the hands of the appellant

High Court Of Madras D. Zeenath vs. ITO Section 48 Asst. Year 1995-1996 Vineet Kothari & C. V. Karthikeyan, JJ. T.C.A No. 2582 of 2006 3rd April, 2019 Counsel appeared: Subhang Nair Assisted, Shobana Krishnan for the Appellant.: M. Swaminathan (Senior Standing Counsel) Assisted by V.Pushpa for the Respondent C. V. KARTHIKEYAN, J. The assessee has …

S.C : The Tribunal came to the conclusion that prior to the insertion of the expression “suo motu” with effect from 1 April 2008 in Section 142(2C), the assessing officer had no jurisdiction to extend time for the submission of the report of an auditor appointed under sub section (2A)

Supreme Court Of India CIT vs. Ram Kishan Dass Section 142(2A), 142(2C) Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud & Hemant Gupta, JJ. Civil Appeal No 3211 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No 2810 of 2012) WITH Civil Appeal No(s). 3214, 3212, 3213, 3228 26th March, 2019 DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J. Leave granted in the Special …

Madras H.C : Whether the Income Tax Law is a-political, a-religious in character, whether the character and attributes of the recipient of an income determines the taxability or the character of the receipt of income

High Court Of Madras Union Of India (Rep. By The Secretary Ministry Of Finance) And Ors. vs. The Society Of Mary Immaculate (Tamil Nadu)(Rep. By Its President) And Ors. Section 15, 192 & Section 4(3)(ia) of Income Tax Act, 1922 Dr. Vineet Kothari & C.V.Karthikeyan, JJ. Writ Appeal Nos.391 to 402, 569 to 583, 585 to …

S.C : The respondent-assesse (Bank) was entitled to claim deduction under Section 35-D

Supreme Court Of India Pr.CIT vs. Yes Bank Ltd. Section 260A, 35D Asst. Year 2007-2008 Abhay Manohar Sapre & Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. Civil Appeal No. 3148 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.7118 of 2018) 15th March, 2019 Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order …

Madras H.C : Whether the expenditure claimed by the Assessee is to be treated as Revenue Expenditure or Capital Expenditure

High Court Of Madras Hanon Automotive Systems India Private Limited (Previously Known As M/S.Visteon Automotive Systems India Private Limited) Represented By Its Authorised Signatory Mr.B. Swaminathan vs. DCIT Section 147, 148, 260A Asst. Year 2011-2012 Dr. Vineet Kothari & C.V.Karthikeyan, JJ. W.A.Nos.830 and 835 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.6495 of 2019 14th March, 2019 Counsel Appeared: N.V.Balaji …

Madras H.C : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in confirming the assessment of Rs.58,60,105/- as income of the appellant, invoking Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act?

High Court Of Madras West Asia Exports & Imports (P) Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Section 23, 41, 41(1), 260A Asst. Year 2003-04 Dr. Vineet Kothari & C.V.Karthikeyan, JJ. Tax Case Appeal No.302 of 2008 11th March, 2019 Counsel Appeared: M.P. Senthil Kumar for the Petitioner.: M.Swaminathan, Senior Standing Counsel for the Respondent. DR. …

Madras H.C : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in not appreciating that the market value of the library materials that were available as on 01.04.1981 has to be estimated and thereafter indexation as provided u/s. 48 had to be allowed on such market value, while computing the capital gains on sale of library containing antique materials ?

High Court Of Madras Vallikannu Nagarajan And Sivagami Roja Muthiah vs. The DCIT Section 48 Asst. Year 1995-96 to 1999-2000 Dr. Vineeth Kothari & C.V. Karthikeyan, JJ. T.C. Nos.735 to 737 of 2009 7th March, 2019 Counsel Appeared: M.P. Senthil Kumar for the Petitioner.: M. Swaminathan, Standing Counsel, Premalatha, Jr. Standing. Counsel for the Respondent. DR. …

S.C : Share Capital/Premium is credited in the books of account of the Assessee company, the onus of proof is on the assessee to establish by cogent and reliable evidence of the identity of the investor companies, the creditworthiness of the investors, and genuineness of the transaction, to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer

Supreme Court Of India Pr.CIT (Central) vs. NRA Iron &Steel Pvt. Ltd. Section 68 Uday Umesh Lalit & Indu Malhotra, JJ. Civil Appeal No. 002463-002463/2019 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 29855 of 2018) 5th March, 2019 INDU MALHOTRA, J. Leave granted. The present appeal arises out of the Judgment and Order dated 26.02 2018 passed …

S.C : The Revenue arises out of the income tax proceedings initiated against the respondent(assessee) on the basis of a search operation which was carried out by the Income Tax Department in assessee’s premises

Supreme Court Of India CIT vs. Rashtradoot (HUF) Section 260A Asst. Year 1987-88 to 1996-97 & 1997-98 Abhay Manohar Sapre & Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. CIVIL APPEAL No. 2362 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.20075 of 2017) 27th February, 2019 ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. Leave granted. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order …

Bombay H.C : The redemption fine of Rs. 75,00,000/- is allowable as business expenditure under Section 37

High Court Of Bombay Pr.CIT vs. Sushil Gupta Section 69C, 271(1)(c) Asst. Year 1988-89 Akil Kureshi & B. P. Colabawalla, JJ. Income Tax Appeal No. 51 OF 2016 With Notice Of Motion No. 797 OF 2018 IN 1975 Of 22nd February, 2019 Counsel Appeared: Prakash Chandra Chhotaray for the Appellant.: Vikram Nankani, Senior Counsel with S.L. …

Tag: In favour of Revenue