Case Laws

Financial Reporting Manager

Free Trial | Login

Advanced Search

Refine Search

AS No

Subject

Section

Authority

Citation

Year Volume

Journal Page No

Date Of DecisionFrom To

Year

Judge

Appellant / Respondent

In Favour Of

Search Within

Showing 1 - 20 of 8080 Records

Search within Search

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs.D. CHETAN & CO.
High Court of Bombay , Oct 01, 2016 AS 11
forward contract in foreign exchange when incidental to carrying on business of cotton exporter and done to cover up losses on account of differences in foreign exchange valuations, would not be speculative activity but a business activity
Business Income—Speculative Transaction—Forward contract transaction—Assessee was engaged in business of import and export of diamonds&mdas
AAKASH LAVLESH LEISURE PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS vs.INCOME TAX OFFICER & ORS.
Bombay Tribunal , Sep 26, 2016 AS 9 , AS 18
non-refundable entrance fee received by assessee based on factual matrix of case is chargeable to tax as revenue receipts in hand of assessee.
Business income—Profits and gains of business or profession—Non refundable entrance fee—Assessee was company engaged in business of family
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs.KNIGHT FRANK INDIA PVT. LTD.
High Court of Bombay , Sep 23, 2016 AS 2
on plain reading of section145a(a)(ii) , same would not apply to the service tax billed on rendering of services,this is so as the service tax billed has no relation to any goods nor does it have anything to do with bringing the goods to a particular location
Accounts—Method of accounting in certain cases—Non application of service tax—Respondent assessee engaged in business of real estate consultancy/agency
SUM TOTAL SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs.DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Hyderabad Tribunal , Sep 23, 2016 AS 17
1. this is assessee’s appeal for the a.y 2010-11. in this appeal, the assessee is aggrieved by the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144c(13) of the i.t. act in accordance with the directions of the drp. 2. brief facts of the case are that the assessee company, which is in the business of software development and support services, filed its original return of income for the a...
Transfer Pricing—Reference to Transfer Pricing Officer—Determination of ALP—Assessee company, which was in
KNOX INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. vs.INCOME TAX OFFICER
Pune Tribunal , Aug 26, 2016 AS 1
obligation for re-payment of enhanced liability corresponding to financial charges crystallized with efflux of time and so enhanced liability and consequential differential costs i.e. finance charges was accrued indeed.
Account — Finance charges — Addition — Assessee filed its return of income declaring Nil income — During assessment proceedings, AO observed that
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs.SHREE NIDHI CORPORATION
CESTAT Ahmedabad , Aug 26, 2016 AS 7
assessee has not denied the statement anywhere however its true purport is being twisted by putting forth a convenient interpretation of the statement that it amounts to being from specific housing project, eligible for sec. 80(ib) and further the income is not credited to p & l a/c but to work in progress account so that profit or loss from the project will be determined on basis of project completion method
Deduction—Deduction in respect of profits and gains from industrial undertakings after a certain date, etc—Unaccounted income—Assessee, partnership firm
SAI SREE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. vs.ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Hyderabad Tribunal , Aug 26, 2016 AS 7
where all out goings falling under ss 30 to 38 were deemed to have been allowed while estimating the income, no separate deduction was allowable in respect of the same out of the estimated income in this respect and hence depreciation should be excluded; but interest and remuneration to working partners were allowable as deduction as it did not fall under ss 30 to 38
Business Expenditure—General—Deduction of interest and remuneration—Assessee was company engaged in business of development and constructio
SILICON GRAPHICS SYSTEMS INDIA PVT. LTD. vs.DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Delhi Tribunal , Aug 24, 2016 AS 11
when the assessee has been following consistent policy on re-statement of foreign currency payables and whenever there is gain the same is duly offered to tax than the assesse is liable for disallowance on foreign exchange fluctuation loss
Business income—Speculative Loss—Foreign exchange fluctuation loss—Disallowance—Assessee claimed foreign exchange fluctuation loss of
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR vs.HCL COMENT LTD. & ANR.
Delhi Tribunal , Aug 19, 2016 AS 2
1. all the captioned appeals were heard together and are being disposed of this composite order, for the sake of convenience. ita no. 321/del/2012 ( revenue’s appeal for ay 2004-05): 2. this appeal, preferred by the revenue, arises out of cit(a)-xxvii, new delhi’s order dated 31...
1. All the captioned appeals were heard together and are being disposed of this composite order, for the sake of convenience. ITA no. 321/Del/2012 ( Revenue’s appeal for AY 2004-05): 2. This appeal, preferred by the revenue, arises out of CIT(A)-XXVII, New Delhi’s order dated 31.10.2011 in appeal no. 180/09-10 relating to AY 2004-05. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company was engaged in the business of designing, de
HALDIA PETROCHEMICALS LTD. & ANR. vs.JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.
Kolkata Tribunal , Aug 11, 2016 AS 11
ao could not make any adjustments to book profits of taxpayer once it was certified by auditors
Assessee’s appeal ITA No.581/Kol/2009 AY 05-06
BOMBAY DYEING & MFG. CO. LTD. & ANR. vs.DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.
Bombay Tribunal , Aug 11, 2016 AS 19
ownership of impugned asset was with assessee and same was used for purpose of business of leasing carried on by assessee, hence assessee was entitled for benefit of depreciation
Revenue’s appeal in ITA CROMPTON GREAVES LTD. vs.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Bombay Tribunal , Aug 11, 2016 AS 29
no infirmity in order of cit passed u/s 263 setting aside assessment order passed u/s 143(3) as erroneous in so far as prejudicial to interest of revenue and directing ao to assess income of assessee company after making necessary
Revision—Revision By Commissioner Of Orders Prejudicial To Revenue—Assessee company was engaged in business of manufacturing, marketing and opera
WOCKHARDT HOSPITALS LTD. vs.DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Bombay Tribunal , Aug 08, 2016 AS 15
assessee capitalized payments made for acquisition of management rights in its books of accounts and hence same was not allowable as expenses u/s 37(1) of act.
Depreciation—Purchasing management rights—Intangible assets—Regarding asessee company’s appeal in ITA no. 805/Mum/2011 for AY 2008-09, assessee co
OAKTON GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY SERVICES CENTRE (INDIA) PVT. LTD. vs.ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Hyderabad Tribunal , Aug 05, 2016 AS 17
1. this appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 92ca(3) r.w.s.144c(5) of the income tax act, 1961 (in short ‘act’) dated 02/10/02/2015 relating to ay 2010-11. 2. brief facts of the case are, m/s oakton global technology service centre (india) p...
Non Resident — Arms Length Pricing —Transaction Net Margin Method — TP documentation— Software development services— M/s Oakton Global Techn
D. K. BASAK JEWELLERS PVT. LTD. & ANR. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.
Kolkata Tribunal , Jul 29, 2016 AS 2
once basic premise on non-existence of 24 ct gold is defeated, purity difference also vanished and there is no need to convert 24 ct gold into 22 ct gold.
Addition—Addition on difference in gold items quantity wise and purity wise—Assessee was in business of manufacture and sale of gold ornaments and it had its
TATA INDUSTRIES LTD vs.INCOME TAX OFFICER
Bombay Tribunal , Jul 20, 2016 AS 9
section 14a would not apply if no exempt income was received or receivable during relevant previous year and that expression ‘did not form part of total income’
Income—Expenditure incurred in Relation to Income not includible in total income—Exempt Income—Assessee was
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS. vs. PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
Kolkata Tribunal , Jul 13, 2016 AS 2
incentive in form of subsidy could not be considered as payment directly or indirectly to meet any portion of the actual cost and thus it falls outside ken of explanation 10 to section 43(1).
ITA No. 2033Kol/2013 – Asst Year 2003-04 – Assessee Appeal
INFIBEAM INCORPORATION LTD. vs.INCOME TAX OFFICER
Ahmedabad Tribunal , Jul 08, 2016 Ind AS 11 , AS 13
when accounts were prepared in violation of accounting standards and profit on revaluation of investment though stated to be 'notional profit', was actually utilized for issuing bonus shares to shareholders who were group of family members than the addition made justified
Company—Notional Profit—Issuance of bonus share to shareholder—Addition—Assessee-company was carrying on business of providing e-comm
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. vs.ALCHEMIST HR SERVICES P. LTD. & ANR.
Hyderabad Tribunal , Jul 01, 2016 AS 9
assessee correctly accounted incomes in third and fourth year on accrual basis and amounts could not be brought to tax on receipt basis, as these were only advances without any obligation to service in year of receipt.
Assessment—Assessment of amount received—Assessee YCH LOGISTICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED vs.DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Other Tribunals , Jun 30, 2016 AS 2
in transfer pricing wherever it is possible it shall be important to benchmark ae transactions separately for better comparability.
Non Residents—Computation of arm’s length price—Adoption of CUP method—Assessee engaged in business of warehousing, freight and distribution and f