Tag Archives: In favour of Revenue

Bombay H.C : The assessee integrated both and this is a systematic activity or trading of shares with business motive. Thus, this is a trading activity and, therefore, he treated the short term capital gain offered by the assessee as business income.

High Court Of Bombay Ramilaben D. Jain vs. ACIT S. C. Dharmadhikari & B. P.[...]

S.C : An assessee who sets up a new industry of a kind mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 80-IC of the Act and starts availing exemption of 100 per cent tax under subsection (3) of Section 80-IC (which is admissible for five years) can start claiming the exemption at the same rate of 100% beyond the period of five years on the ground that the assessee has now carried out substantial expansion in its manufacturing unit

Supreme Court Of India CIT vs. Classic Binding Industries A. K. Sikri & Ashok Bhushan,[...]

Bombay H.C : Assessee claimed short term capital gains on sale and purchase of shares as well as speculation income from trading of shares

High Court of Bombay Ramilaben D. Jain vs. ACIT C. Dharmadhikari & B. P. Colabawalla,[...]

Delhi H.C : the appellant and other joint account holders had an over draft facility and the amounts withdrawn were for construction of a building belonging to the three joint account holders and the surplus money, when not required, was re-deposited.

High Court Of Delhi Late Sh. Dinesh Kumar Jain Vs. Pr.CIT Section 260A, 69A Sanjiv[...]

Karnataka H.C : The condition under section 47(xiii)(b) should be satisfied only at the time of succession and not at any time thereafter

High Court Of Karnataka CIT & Anr. Vs. Prakash Electric Company & Anr. Section 47(xiii)(b),[...]

Karnataka H.C : Depreciation charged and deducted only 10% of such Depreciation for arriving at the PLI. Because of this adjustment, operation loss of 2.70% became positive operating profit of 1. 78%

High Court Of Karnataka Indigra Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Dr. Vineet Kothari & S.[...]

Madras H.C : The assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 80IB(10)

High Court Of Madras CIT vs. Elegant Estates Indira Banerjee, CJ & P. T. Asha,[...]

Delhi H.C : The amount in issue was not a loan within the meaning of Section 269SS of the Act

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Pawan Kumar Jain Sanjiv Khanna & Chander Shekhar, JJ.[...]

Uttarakhand H.C : Application seeking condonation of delay of 653 days by way of abundant caution so that, in case if the court finds that there is delay in filing the appeal, an order may be passed condoning the delay.

High Court Of Uttarakhand Director Of Income Tax (International Taxation) vs. Hyundai Heavy Industries Co.[...]

Calcutta H.C : the appellant did not file its return for the relevant assessment year within the period prescribed under Section 139 (1) of the Act.

High Court Of Calcutta Suolificio Linea Italia (India) (P) Ltd. vs. JCIT Section 80-IB Sanjib[...]

Gujarat H.C : Provisions of S.151(2) of the Income Tax Act are complied with when actual satisfaction was taken of Commissioner only

High Court Of Gujarat Mayurbhai Mangaldas Patel vs. ITO Akil Kureshi & B.N. Karia, JJ.[...]

Kerala H.C : Appellant was entitled for deduction under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act 1961

High Court Of Kerala Nishant Export Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Mattancherry Section[...]

Delhi H.C : Where petitioner had voluntarily agreed and undertaken to pay to department compounding charges and to withdraw his appeal, he is to be directed to be bound down by same

High Court Of Delhi Vikram Singh vs. Union of India Section 279 Sanjiv Khanna And[...]

Bombay H.C : The transfer within the meaning of Section 2(47)(v) had taken place only in 2002-03 assessment year ignoring the development agreement by way of Power of Attorney, based on which transfer of possession and development have taken place much earlier and when the order of the Tribunal is contrary to facts and law

High Court Of Bombay Dr. Joao Souza Proenca vs. ITO, Ward -2(2), Panaji Section 2(47),[...]

Madras H.C : As no notice was issued by the Assessing Officer intimating his intention to invoke the explanation to Section 271(1)(1)(c) the appellant had no opportunity of meeting the case under the explanation. Hence, levy of penalty under the explanation, therefore, is not sustainable

High Court Of Madras CIT, Thiruvananthapuram v. Smt. Vasantha Anirudhan Section 271, 69 Assessment year[...]

Delhi H.C : Where assessee accepted reduced quantum of disallowance under section 14A granted by Commissioner (Appeals) but when revenue filed appeal before Tribunal, assessee filed cross-objection after delay of over four years completely denying liability under section 14A, said delay was not to be condoned

High Court Of Delhi Jubilant Securities (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT Section : 254, 14A S.[...]

Karnataka H.C : Where notice under section 133(6) was issued against a deceased person, wife of said deceased person would have to comply with said notice for furnishing requisite information under said section

High Court Of Karnataka Mrs. S. Savithri vs. ITO, 5(2)(5)Bang. Section 133 Dr. Vineet Kothari,[...]

Kerala H.C : Where assessee was following mercantile system of accounting, interest accrued to it on fixed deposits was to be brought to tax in relevant year itself even though maturity period or expiry date did not fall in assessment year in question

High Court Of Kerala Pr. CIT, Kottayam vs. Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd. Section 5[...]

Delhi H.C : Even where there were scrutiny assessments, reassessment would be permissible if in succeeding year, Assessing Officer noticed that though there was merger/amalgamation, assessee had, in computing depreciation on goodwill, instead of adopting ‘pooling of assets’ method, adopted a wrong method of ‘purchase’

High Court Of Delhi SC Johnson Products (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT, Circle-22(2), New Delhi Section[...]

Kerala H.C : Where assessee-trust formed for promotion of interest of non-resident keralites received income from certification, bank interest etc. which was not spent for charitable purpose, mere fact that a part of funds received from Government was utilised for charitable activities, same would not make assessee eligible for registration under sec. 12AA

High Court Of Kerala Norka Roots Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax Section 2(15), 12AA K. Vinod[...]

S.C : Even though eligible business is given benefit of deduction under section 80-IB on account of assessee satisfying conditions mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 80-IB, yet benefit of said deduction can be denied subsequently having regard to fact that assessee ceased to be a small scale industry during ten consecutive years

Supreme Court Of India DCIT, Circle 11(1), Bangalore vs. ACE Multi Axes Systems Ltd. Section[...]

Madras H.C : Where assessee’s case was transferred from one place to another in same city, in view of provisions of sub-section (3) of section 127, assessee could not plead for an opportunity of hearing before order of transfer

High Court of Madras Advantage Strategic Consulting (P.) Ltd. vs. Pr.CIT, Chennai-1 Section 127 S.[...]

Bombay H.C : The date of transfer as the date of handling over of physical possession of the property i.e. 01.03.2008 by the assessee, as against the date of Execution of Development Agreement alongwith irrevocable General Power of Attorney i.e. 13.09.2007

High Court Of Bombay CIT-111, Pune Vs. Dr. Arvind S. Phake Section : 54EC Assessment[...]

Allahabad H.C : The Tribunal was justified in confirming the demand of interest u/s 234-A and 234-B of the Income Tax Act

High Court Of Allahabad Mahabeer Prasad Jain vs. CIT Section 69, 234A, 234B Abhinava Upadhya[...]

Dellhi H.C : Order dated 31.03.2016 passed under section 263 of the Act was without jurisdiction, illegal and bad in law

High Court Of Delhi BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. vs. Pr.CIT, Delhi-2 Section : 32, 263[...]

AAR – NewDelhi : The payments received/to be received by the Applicant for rendering, lighting and searchlight services to the Organizing Committee, Commonwealth Games 2010, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “ÖCCG”) under the Agreement dated 9th July, 2010 would be taxable in India under the provisions of the Income tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”)

AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS (INCOME TAX), NEW DELHI Production Resource Group, In re Section 9[...]

Madras H.C : Where assessee filed writ seeking permission to file ITR without quoting Aadhar No., and contended that SC had in Binoy Viswam v. UOI [2017] 396 ITR 66/249 Taxman 290/82 taxmann.com 211 granted partial stay on section 139AA, since Supreme Court had not stayed proviso to Sub-section (2) of section 139AA, writ was to be dismissed

High Court Of Madras Thiagarajan Kumararaja Vs. Union of India Section : 139AA, 114B Assessment[...]

Uttarakhand H.C : Whether since it was a case where assessment had been reopened on basis of tangible material placed on record, validity of reassessment proceedings deserved to be upheld

High Court Of Uttarakhand Dolphin Drilling Ltd. Vs. Assistant Director of Income-tax Section : 92CA,147[...]

Kerala H.C : Whether since assessee disputed his liability to pay tax on capital gains and interest levied giving effect to capital gains based on receipt of compensation, it would not absolve him from paying tax on capital gains, and, thus, there was no merit in writ petition challenging reassessment filed by assessee

High Court Of Kerala C.V. Jayachandran Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Trivandrum Section 234A, 119[...]

Madras H.C : Where Commissioner (Appeals) made an observation that addition made by AO under section 68 represented capital introduced by partners of assessee-firm, AO could initiate suitable proceedings for looking into matter as said aspect of capital introduction by partners had not been examined earlier

High Court Of Madras Alfa Investments vs. ITO, Chennai Section 147, 150 Assessment years 2010-11[...]