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

transfer, then for the purpose of deduction under Section 80-IA, the profits and gains of such eligible business shall be computed by adopting arm’s length pricing. In other words, if the assessing officer rejects the price as not corresponding to the market value of such good, then he has to compute the sale price of the good

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

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Transfer Pricing Officer8 passed an order under Section 92CA (3) determining the Arm’s Length Price of royalty at 3 per cent and making an adjustment of Rs. 78.97 crores in respect of royalty paid by the assessee for the relevant previous year. 10 On 11 March 2016, a draft assessment order was passed in the name of Suzuki Powertrain

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 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

K. KRISHNAMURTHY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is disposed of with

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961’). FACTS 3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that a Memorandum of Understanding (‘MOU’) dated 19th January, 2009 was entered into between Digitally signed by JATINDER KAUR Date: 2025.02.13 17:04:57 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified Special Leave Petition (C)No.943 of 2023 Page

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

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

The appeal is allowed

prices given in "Accommodation Times" I am of the opinion and feel that the rate of the Residential Apartment in the area in 1981 would be in between Rs.2500 to Rs.3000/- per S.FT. I think that the lower value of Rs.2500 per S.FT. as fair and reasonable. This rate will be fair and reasonable for the share of http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

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