COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. BALBIR SINGH MAINI

The appeals are dismissed with no order as to

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

capital gain was, therefore, stated to be Rs.3,54,68,276/-. 8. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal upholding the order passed by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which was also dismissed by the ITAT. 9. In the impugned judgment by the High Court under Section 260A

DILIP N. SHROFF vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI &ANR

The appeal is allowed

capital gains is an important factor to be noticed\005.In the case before us, the difference in the valuation between the registered valuer and the DVO arose on account of incorrect application of the principles of valuation or non adherence thereto by the registered valuer as against the valuation made by the DVO as per accepted norms of valuation which

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. CORE HEALTH CARE LTD

260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, stood dismissed. 3. On 31.12.92 assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 1992-93 declaring "nil" income. Later on the assessee filed a revised return on 6.8.93 declaring a loss of Rs.1,11,68,543/-. Assessee-company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of intravenous solutions. For the assessment

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S JINDAL STEEL THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

Appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The core and common issue raised in all the appeals is the recomputation of deduction under Section 80 IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the assessing officer which was set aside by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and upheld by the High Courts by accepting the contention of the assessee. Revenue

MANSAROVAR COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

capital gains in a particular case may tantamount to a failure in raising a substantial question of law in terms of Section 260A

PLASTIBLENDS INDIA LIMITED THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR vs. ADDL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE 8(2) MUMBAI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

260A of the Act on the basis that a substantial question of law arose for consideration. The High Court was pleased to admit the appeal and formulated the following question of law as arising for determination: “Whether the eligible income of an undertaking in respect of which deductions available under Section 80-IA has to be reduced by the allowance

M/S.VIRTUAL SOFT SYSTEMS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-I

260A of the Act which was allowed by the High Court by the impugned order. The point involved before the High Court was, as to whether penalty was leviable under Section 271 (1)(c)(iii) read with Explanation 4 thereto which came on the statute book w.e.f. 01.04.1976, in a case where the return filed was one of loss

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JAIPUR vs. PRAKASH CHAND LUNIA (D) THR LRS

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

260A of the Act against the Penalty order, before the High Court. The High Court while deciding both the cases together, qua the first question, decided in favour of the Revenue and the rental premises of the assessee, the same is to be added to his income as a natural consequence. However, with regard to the second question, the High

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 6 vs. KHYATI REALTORS PVT. LTD

The appeal is allowed, in the above terms, without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

260A of the IT Act. The Bombay High Court ruled that no question of law requiring a decision arose in the appeal and consequently declined to entertain the Revenue’s plea. 5. The Revenue contended that Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act gives benefit to the assessee to claim a deduction on any bad debt or part thereof, which

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI vs. TRANS ASIAN SHIPPING SERVICES (P) LTD

Capital Gains and (v) Income from Other Sources. Thereafter, manner of computation of the income under the aforesaid heads is stipulated in various sections falling under Chapter IV. As far as Income from Profits and Gains of Business or Profession is concerned, Sections 28 to 44DB of the Act contain the procedure for computation of income under this head. Therefore

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LIMITED

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

260A by the Delhi High Court on 9 January 2018 following 9 “DRP” 7 its earlier decision in the case of the assessee for AY 2011-12. That has given rise to the present appeal. 17 Mr Zoheb Hossain, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that: (i) The High Court was not justified in quashing the final

IPCA LABORATORY LTD. vs. DY. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

260A of the Income Tax Act. The question for consideration is whether the Appellants are entitled to deduction under Section 80HHC in respect of the sum of Rs. 3.78 crores by ignoring the loss of Rs. 6.86 crores. It therefore becomes necessary to look at Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act. The relevant portions of Section 80HHC reads

M/S D. N. SINGH THROUGH PARTNER DUDHESHWAR NATH SINGH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH

260A of the Act. The High Court, inter alia, refers to the appellant filing Return for the 11 Assessment Year 1996-1997, disclosing total income of Rs.576133/-. 14. Reference is made to the addition of Rs.1,04,72,720.30 on the basis of short supply of bitumen. After referring to the submissions, the court focussed on the scope of Section

M/S SNOWTEX INVESTMENT LIMITED vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -2, KOLKATA

The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed reportable

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3 The appellant was registered as a non-banking financial company under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. The appellant filed its return of income on 27 September 2008. The return was processed under Section 143(1) on 8 October 2009. On the case being selected for scrutiny, a notice was issued

M/S. MANGALAM PUBLICATIONS, KOTTAYAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM

Bench: This Court & On Leave Being Granted, Civil Appeals Have Been Registered. 3.

260A of the Act, being IT Appeal Nos. 400, 557 and 558 of 2009 for the assessment years 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93 respectively. All the three appeals were allowed by the High Court vide the common order dated 12.10.2009. According to the High Court, the finding of the Tribunal that the assessee had disclosed fully and truly

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs

260A of the 1961 Act. By impugned decision dated 2.6.06, Delhi High Court following 3 its earlier judgment in the case of Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Azadpur v. Commissioner of Income- tax – (I.T.A. No.749/2006) dismissed the appellant’s appeal. Hence this civil appeal. 9. At the outset, it may be stated that all AMCs at different places were enjoying exemption

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, vs. URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST

The appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

260A of the I.T. Act. The High Court decided all the appeals vide its judgment dated 25.07.2017. High Court held the assessee to be local authority within the meaning of Section 10(20) Explanation. After answering the above issue in favour of the assessee, the High court held that other issues 5 have become academic. Consequently, the appeals filed

THE CITIZEN COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR G.RANGA RAO. HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed reportable

gains of business attributable to any one or more of such activities: xx xx xx” 4) Section 80P was amended by the Finance Act, 2006 with effect from April 01, 2007 and sub-section (4) was inserted thereto. This sub-section (4) reads as under: “(4) The provisions of this section shall not apply in relation to any co-operative