YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

iii) He should not have been resident in India in any of the four financial years immediately preceding the financial year in which he arrived in India; and (iv) The tax on his salary income should have been paid by the employer. Section 10(5B) had been inserted by the Finance Act, 1993, with effect from April

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

iii) He should not have been resident in India in any of the four financial years immediately preceding the financial year in which he arrived in India; and (iv) The tax on his salary income should have been paid by the employer. Section 10(5B) had been inserted by the Finance Act, 1993, with effect from April

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ANKITECH PVT LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

17. She, thus, argued that in order to ensure that the income which is normally to be distributed as dividend by the company is not frittered away in the form of advance and loans to the same very shareholders escaping the clutches of tax, provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act were enacted. By this provision, a fiction

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4 vs. GALGOTIA BOOKS & DEPARTMENT STORE PVT. LTD.

The appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

property in question) and the enforcement authority (the State). Since the second of the above species of "proceeds of crime" uses the expression "such property", the qualifying word being "such", it is vivid that the "property" referred to here is equivalent to the one indicated by the first kind. The only difference is that it is not the same property

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8 vs. SALDI CHITS PVT. LTD.,

The appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

property in question) and the enforcement authority (the State). Since the second of the above species of "proceeds of crime" uses the expression "such property", the qualifying word being "such", it is vivid that the "property" referred to here is equivalent to the one indicated by the first kind. The only difference is that it is not the same property

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. DELHI PRESS PATRA PRAKASHAN LTD

17 of 45 continued even after Unit Nos.2 & 3 were established. It is contended that in these circumstances, it could not be said that Unit Nos. 2 & 3 had been formed by splitting up of business of the assessee, so as to disqualify the assessee claiming benefit under Section 80-I of the Act. The learned counsel for the assessee

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

17 of 45 continued even after Unit Nos.2 & 3 were established. It is contended that in these circumstances, it could not be said that Unit Nos. 2 & 3 had been formed by splitting up of business of the assessee, so as to disqualify the assessee claiming benefit under Section 80-I of the Act. The learned counsel for the assessee

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. DELHI PRESS PATRA PRAKASHAN LTD

17 of 45 continued even after Unit Nos.2 & 3 were established. It is contended that in these circumstances, it could not be said that Unit Nos. 2 & 3 had been formed by splitting up of business of the assessee, so as to disqualify the assessee claiming benefit under Section 80-I of the Act. The learned counsel for the assessee

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. DELHI PRESS PATRA PRAKASHAN LT

17 of 45 continued even after Unit Nos.2 & 3 were established. It is contended that in these circumstances, it could not be said that Unit Nos. 2 & 3 had been formed by splitting up of business of the assessee, so as to disqualify the assessee claiming benefit under Section 80-I of the Act. The learned counsel for the assessee

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. DELHI PRESS PATRA PRAKASHAN LTD

17 of 45 continued even after Unit Nos.2 & 3 were established. It is contended that in these circumstances, it could not be said that Unit Nos. 2 & 3 had been formed by splitting up of business of the assessee, so as to disqualify the assessee claiming benefit under Section 80-I of the Act. The learned counsel for the assessee

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

17 of 45 continued even after Unit Nos.2 & 3 were established. It is contended that in these circumstances, it could not be said that Unit Nos. 2 & 3 had been formed by splitting up of business of the assessee, so as to disqualify the assessee claiming benefit under Section 80-I of the Act. The learned counsel for the assessee

CIT vs. DELHI PRESS PATRA PRAKASHAN LTD

17 of 45 continued even after Unit Nos.2 & 3 were established. It is contended that in these circumstances, it could not be said that Unit Nos. 2 & 3 had been formed by splitting up of business of the assessee, so as to disqualify the assessee claiming benefit under Section 80-I of the Act. The learned counsel for the assessee

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S DELHI PRESS PATRA PRAKASHAN LTD

17 of 45 continued even after Unit Nos.2 & 3 were established. It is contended that in these circumstances, it could not be said that Unit Nos. 2 & 3 had been formed by splitting up of business of the assessee, so as to disqualify the assessee claiming benefit under Section 80-I of the Act. The learned counsel for the assessee

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

17 of 45 continued even after Unit Nos.2 & 3 were established. It is contended that in these circumstances, it could not be said that Unit Nos. 2 & 3 had been formed by splitting up of business of the assessee, so as to disqualify the assessee claiming benefit under Section 80-I of the Act. The learned counsel for the assessee

DLF CYBER CITY DEVELOPERS LTD.,GURGAON vs. ADDL. CIT, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshacit, Vs. Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Circle-1(1), Gurugram Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Range-I, Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Gurgaon Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H

iii) of the Act. It is not in dispute that the assessee has exercised its option to claim deduction u/s 80IA of the Act for AY 2011-12 by treating the same as „ initial assessment year‟. The assessee earned rental income from leased building on the basis of lease agreement and offered the same to tax under the head „income

DLF CYBER CITY DEVELOPERS LTD.,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), GURUGRAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshacit, Vs. Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Circle-1(1), Gurugram Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Range-I, Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Gurgaon Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H

iii) of the Act. It is not in dispute that the assessee has exercised its option to claim deduction u/s 80IA of the Act for AY 2011-12 by treating the same as „ initial assessment year‟. The assessee earned rental income from leased building on the basis of lease agreement and offered the same to tax under the head „income

DLF CYBER CITY DEVELOPERS LTD.,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), GURUGRAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshacit, Vs. Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Circle-1(1), Gurugram Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Range-I, Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Gurgaon Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H

iii) of the Act. It is not in dispute that the assessee has exercised its option to claim deduction u/s 80IA of the Act for AY 2011-12 by treating the same as „ initial assessment year‟. The assessee earned rental income from leased building on the basis of lease agreement and offered the same to tax under the head „income

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), GURUGRAM vs. DLF CYBER CITY DEVELOPERS LTD., GURUGRAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshacit, Vs. Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Circle-1(1), Gurugram Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Range-I, Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Gurgaon Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H

iii) of the Act. It is not in dispute that the assessee has exercised its option to claim deduction u/s 80IA of the Act for AY 2011-12 by treating the same as „ initial assessment year‟. The assessee earned rental income from leased building on the basis of lease agreement and offered the same to tax under the head „income