Income Tax : In case of Gujarat Energy Transmission Corpn. Ltd vs. ACIT, assessee-company the company has provided certain sum towards employee...
Income Tax : The Delhi High Court in case of Teletube Electronics Ltd Vs CIT held that there has to be an extinguishment of ownership rights in...
Income Tax : In case of Ram Piyari Devi Charitable Trust Vs. Director General Of Income Tax, Delhi High Court held that in order to claim exemp...
Income Tax : The Delhi High Court has held in case of Stitchwell Qualitex (RF) Vs. ITO that Installation of plant and machinery in building wou...
Income Tax : In case of Oriental Insurance Company vs. CIT, Delhi High Court held that AO could not assume jurisdiction to reopen assessment u/...
ITAT Mumbai has held in the case of C.R. developments Vs. JCIT that time limit for investment is six months from the date of transfer and even if such investment falls under two financial years, the benefit claimed by the assessee cannot be denied.
ITAT Mumbai has In the case of CIT Vs. Sh. Chandrakant V. Gosalia held that Loan given by Company to its substantial shareholder will attracts provisions of section 2 (22)(e) of Income Tax Act,1961 if the same were not lent in ordinary course of business and mere payment of loan amount would not escape assesse from provision of Section 2 (22)(e).
CIT vs. M/s Hind Agro Industries (ITAT Chandigarh) The assessee pleaded since it is not feasible to maintain stock register, therefore books should not be rejected CIT (A) upheld rejection of books , but considered G.P. rate taken by A.O. of previous year
CIT Vs. G.K. Properties Private Limited (Andhra Pradesh HC) Merely because the assessee made a claim which was not acceptable ipso-facto cannot be said to have made a wrong claim by furnishing inaccurate particulars attracting penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act
CIT Vs. S. Vijaya Kumar (Andhra Pradesh High Court) Individual items of centering and shuttering material used collectively in construction process constitute ‘Plant’ in terms of first proviso to section 32 (1), even if they can’t be used on stand alone basis.
Annam Software Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (ITAT Chennai) Assesse, an EOU, filed its return claiming exemption u/s 10 B. A.O. rejected assesse’s claim. In appellate proceedings , assesse raised a plea that in relevant year it had claimed deduction u/s 10 A
