CIT v. Mak Japan Broadcasting

305 ITR 222Reported decision2007#12595 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2015.

Judgments citing CIT v. Mak Japan Broadcasting

Director of Income Tax vs. Jet Lite (India) Ltd

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms with no order as to

ITA - 205 / 2002HC Delhi04 Nov 2015
Section 260A

…an, learned counsel for the Revenue at length. The payment in question for the AY 1995-96 pertained to the payment made to Jeppson & Co. for navigational data. It is noticed that the issue is covered by the decision in CIT v. Mak Japan Broadcasting (2007) 305 ITR 222 and it is answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. This amendment to Section 210 of the Act with effect from 1st April 2010 provided for an extended limitation period of seven years. However, that amendment was prospective as held in Bhura Exports Limited v. The Income Tax Officer (TDS) (2014) 365 ITR 548 (Cal). 2015:D…

Jet Lite (India) Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax- Xvi

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms with no order as to

ITA - 204 / 2002HC Delhi04 Nov 2015
Section 260A

…an, learned counsel for the Revenue at length. The payment in question for the AY 1995-96 pertained to the payment made to Jeppson & Co. for navigational data. It is noticed that the issue is covered by the decision in CIT v. Mak Japan Broadcasting (2007) 305 ITR 222 and it is answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. This amendment to Section 210 of the Act with effect from 1st April 2010 provided for an extended limitation period of seven years. However, that amendment was prospective as held in Bhura Exports Limited v. The Income Tax Officer (TDS) (2014) 365 ITR 548 (Cal). 2015:D…

Jet Lite (India) Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-Xvi

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms with no order as to

ITA/1206/2005HC Delhi04 Nov 2015
Section 260A

…an, learned counsel for the Revenue at length. The payment in question for the AY 1995-96 pertained to the payment made to Jeppson & Co. for navigational data. It is noticed that the issue is covered by the decision in CIT v. Mak Japan Broadcasting (2007) 305 ITR 222 and it is answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. This amendment to Section 210 of the Act with effect from 1st April 2010 provided for an extended limitation period of seven years. However, that amendment was prospective as held in Bhura Exports Limited v. The Income Tax Officer (TDS) (2014) 365 ITR 548 (Cal). 2015:D…

Jet Lite (India) Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-Xvi

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms with no order as to

ITA/204/2002HC Delhi04 Nov 2015
Section 260A

…an, learned counsel for the Revenue at length. The payment in question for the AY 1995-96 pertained to the payment made to Jeppson & Co. for navigational data. It is noticed that the issue is covered by the decision in CIT v. Mak Japan Broadcasting (2007) 305 ITR 222 and it is answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. This amendment to Section 210 of the Act with effect from 1st April 2010 provided for an extended limitation period of seven years. However, that amendment was prospective as held in Bhura Exports Limited v. The Income Tax Officer (TDS) (2014) 365 ITR 548 (Cal). 2015:D…

Jet Lite (India) Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-Xvi

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms with no order as to

ITA/128/2005HC Delhi04 Nov 2015
Section 260A

…an, learned counsel for the Revenue at length. The payment in question for the AY 1995-96 pertained to the payment made to Jeppson & Co. for navigational data. It is noticed that the issue is covered by the decision in CIT v. Mak Japan Broadcasting (2007) 305 ITR 222 and it is answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. This amendment to Section 210 of the Act with effect from 1st April 2010 provided for an extended limitation period of seven years. However, that amendment was prospective as held in Bhura Exports Limited v. The Income Tax Officer (TDS) (2014) 365 ITR 548 (Cal). 2015:D…

Jet Lite (India) Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-Xvi

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms with no order as to

ITA/205/2002HC Delhi04 Nov 2015
Section 260A

…an, learned counsel for the Revenue at length. The payment in question for the AY 1995-96 pertained to the payment made to Jeppson & Co. for navigational data. It is noticed that the issue is covered by the decision in CIT v. Mak Japan Broadcasting (2007) 305 ITR 222 and it is answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. This amendment to Section 210 of the Act with effect from 1st April 2010 provided for an extended limitation period of seven years. However, that amendment was prospective as held in Bhura Exports Limited v. The Income Tax Officer (TDS) (2014) 365 ITR 548 (Cal). 2015:D…

Jet Lite (India) Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-Xvi

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms with no order as to

ITA/86/2011HC Delhi04 Nov 2015
Section 260A

…an, learned counsel for the Revenue at length. The payment in question for the AY 1995-96 pertained to the payment made to Jeppson & Co. for navigational data. It is noticed that the issue is covered by the decision in CIT v. Mak Japan Broadcasting (2007) 305 ITR 222 and it is answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. This amendment to Section 210 of the Act with effect from 1st April 2010 provided for an extended limitation period of seven years. However, that amendment was prospective as held in Bhura Exports Limited v. The Income Tax Officer (TDS) (2014) 365 ITR 548 (Cal). 2015:D…

Jet Lite (India) Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-Xvi

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms with no order as to

ITA/1209/2005HC Delhi04 Nov 2015
Section 260A

…an, learned counsel for the Revenue at length. The payment in question for the AY 1995-96 pertained to the payment made to Jeppson & Co. for navigational data. It is noticed that the issue is covered by the decision in CIT v. Mak Japan Broadcasting (2007) 305 ITR 222 and it is answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. This amendment to Section 210 of the Act with effect from 1st April 2010 provided for an extended limitation period of seven years. However, that amendment was prospective as held in Bhura Exports Limited v. The Income Tax Officer (TDS) (2014) 365 ITR 548 (Cal). 2015:D…

CIT v. Mak Japan Broadcasting (305 ITR 222) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax