SHIV RAJ GUPTA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI IV

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

260-A (4), requiring the judgment to be set aside on this score. 15. Coming to the merits, the High Court found: “22. …No doubt, market price of each share was only Rs.3/- per share and the purchase price under the MOU was Rs.30/-, but the total consideration received was merely about Rs.56 lacs. What was allegedly paid

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX-I,NEW DELHI vs. VATIKA TOWNSHIP P.LTD

Appeals of the assessees are allowed deleting the surcharge levied by the

260 A of the Act for the block period 01.04.1989 to 10.02.2000. This appeal has been dismissed vide order dated 17.04.2007 by the High Court. It is this order of the High Court which is the subject matter of the appeal in question. 7. It is clear from the aforesaid narration that the High Court has taken the view that

JT.COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,SURAT vs. SAHELI LEASING & INDUSTRIES LTD

Appeals stand allowed as mentioned hereinabove but with

260 A of the Act, was formulated to be answered by it : “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in coming to the conclusion that where assessed income is loss, penalty cannot be levied under section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act in spite

M/S. SYNCO INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. ASSESSING OFFICER,INCOME TAX MUMBAI &ANR

260-A of the Act by filing these appeals. The High Court has dismissed the same by Judgment dated July 23, 2001 giving rise to the instant appeals. 4. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and in great detail. This Court has also considered the documents forming part of the appeals. 5. The plea

VATSALA SHENOY vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the 'Act') challenging certain aspects of assessments pertaining to the Assessment Year 1995-1996. In fact, as would be noticed hereinafter, Page 3 JUDGMENT 3 all these assessees were partners of a partnership firm known as 'M/s. Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works', which was sold to three other partners

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,SIMLA vs. M/S GREEN WORLD CORPORATION

Appeals are disposed of with the aforementioned directions

260-A of the Income Tax Act; (c) Questions which this Court dealt with, while disposing of the appeal, did not arise out of the order of the Tribunal as the Tribunal dealt with only the question of jurisdiction while disposing of the appeal and it did not touch the merits. 8. We find no merit

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,CHENNAI vs. M/S ALAGENDRAN FINANCE LTD

260]. 6. Before embarking upon the rival contentions of the parties raised before us, we may notice the relevant part of Section 263 of the Act which is as under: "263. Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue - (1) The Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order

VODAFONE IDEA LTD(EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 26 (2)

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

260 ITR 84 77 (1996) 222 ITR 140 Guj. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2377 OF 2020 (@ SLP (C) NO.1169 OF 2019) VODAFONE IDEA LTD (EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED) VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 26 (2) & ANR.) 22 that where the summary procedure under sub-section (1) has been adopted, there should be scope available