The petitioner is an Indian citizen. He is a businessman and says that he plays international cricket representing India. He also plays domestic cricket. He participated in what is known as Indian Premier League (IPL). He was one of the players chosen by the franchisee Knight Riders Sports Private Limited. This franchisee is owner of one team in the IPL, namely, Kolkata Knight Riders. An agreement of 21 st April, 2008 with the petitioner was executed by this franchisee.
Principal CIT vs. Grasim Industries Ltd (Bombay High Court) We understand that while appointing panel Advocates for the Revenue, the requirement of having practiced for some number of years is not insisted upon in case a person has domain expertise, such as retired Officers of Revenue. If this indeed be the practice, it would, in […]
This Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), challenges the order dated 21st January, 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order dated 21st January, 2015 is in respect of Assessment Year 2010-11.
Principal CIT Vs M/s. Shree Gopal Housing (Bombay High Court) Admission of an appeal in quantum proceedings, if arising on a pure interpretation of law or on a claim for deduction in respect of which full disclosure has been made, may, give rise to a possible iew, that admission of appeal in the quantum proceedings […]
1. Section 35AB(1) : Obtaining of technical knowhow under a license would also amount to acquiring knowhow 2. Section 35AB: Making of lumpsum payment in 3 installments would not make the payment any less a lumpsum payment 3. Expenditure on knowhow which is used for the purposes of carrying on business would stand covered by Section 35AB of the Act
Writ of prohibition restraining the respondents fromgiving effect to the notices issued for assessment dated 22nd May, 1987, notices for penalty dated 4th August, 1987 and notices for launching of prosecution dated 31st July, 1987 all under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (Wealth Tax Act); and
We are pained to record this most unreasonable attitude on the part of the Advocate for the Revenue of seeking to reargue settled concluded issues, without having obtained any stay from the Apex Court. This results in unnecessary wastage of the scarce judicial time available in the context of the large number of the appeals awaiting consideration.
CIT Vs. P.N. Writer (Bombay High Court) Assessee was entitled to the interest on refund arising on excess payment of self-assessment tax under section 244A, despite the revenue’s contention that assessee had failed to produce any material which would demonstrate how this tax was worked out, and particularly during the course of self-assessment, since the […]
The Revenue has assailed the judgment and order of the Tribunal thereby partly allowing the appeal filed by the Revenue against the judgment and order of the Commissioner (Appeals).
This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed by the Senior Citizen of 82 years of age. This Petition, challenges the orders dated 22nd February, 2012 and 4th October, 2017 passed by the Assessing Officer, rejecting the Petitioner’s application for rectification under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).
