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

M/S JINDAL EQUIPMENT LEASING CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

260A in making the impugned observation on Section 28 before remanding the matter. The preliminary contention of the appellants is, therefore, devoid of merit and stands rejected. 10. Now, another issue that arises for determination in these appeals is whether the High Court, while remanding the matter to the Tribunal to ascertain whether the shares of the amalgamating company were

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

housing or other activities being an integral part of the highway project; and (c) a water supply project, water treatment system, irrigation project, sanitation and sewerage system or solid waste management system; (ii) any undertaking which has started or starts providing telecommunication services whether basic or cellular, including radio paging, domestic satellite service or network of trunking and electronic data

M/S QUEEN'S EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Uttarakhand High Court, Nainital, May Be Gleaned From The Facts Of One Of Them, Namely, The Queen’S Educational Society Case. The Appellant Filed Its Return For Assessment Years 2000-2001 & 2001-2002 Showing A Net Surplus Of Rs.6,58,862/- & Rs.7,82,632/- Respectively. Since The Appellant Was Established With The Sole 2

260A of the Income Tax Act, the High Court vide the impugned judgment set aside the judgment of the ITAT and affirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. 4. These appeals from the Uttarakhand High Court, Nainital, concern themselves with the provision of Section 10(23C) (iiiad) of the Act: “Section 10- Incomes not included in total income.—In computing

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

House Property; (iii) Profits and Gains of Business or Profession; (iv) 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

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

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

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. CALCUTTA KNITWEARS, LUDHIANA

260A of the Act before the High Court. The High Court, by its impugned judgment and order dated 20.07.2010, has rejected the Revenue's appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Tribunal. 14. That is how the Revenue is before us in this appeal. 15. We have heard Shri Rupesh Kumar learned counsel for the Revenue and Shri R.P.Bhatt

M/S. BANGALORE CLUB vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”), the High Court entertained the appeal and framed the following two substantial questions of law for its adjudication :- 4 Page 5 JUDGMENT “(1) Whether, a sum of Rs. 7,87,648/- received by the assessee as interest from fixed deposit made by the assessee in four banks