Others Judgements

The assessee had made a fixed deposit of Rs 1,00,00,000 with ICICI Bank and earned interest of Rs 11,77,574 on these deposits. The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs4,36,705 on account of interest paid on loan of Rs 75,00,000 taken, on the securityof

The assessee engaged in the business of share trading and regular purchase and sale of shares filed a Writ Petition challenging notice issued u/s 148 to reopen assessment. The department that the Writ Petition is not maintainable to challenge the not

The Respondent-assessee is a bank. In the given case, the Bombay High Court has to decide whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the investment in tax free securities/investments are represented by assessee's own funds in the shape of share

The petitioner alleged that a team of Enforcement Officers visited the establishment of the respondent and found that the respondent-establishment failed to extend Provident Fund benefits to transport contractors’ workers; failed to pay Provident Fun

The Respondent assessee is a company incorporated in Belgium and a tax resident of Belgium engaged in business of operation of ships in international traffic. The Assessee collected Inland HaulageCharges from it’s customers in respect of transportati

Commissioner of Income Tax – Versus – HDFC Bank Ltd.

The issue raised before the Bombay High Court was that whether a resolution for approval of a Scheme of Amalgamation can be passed under Section 110 of the Companies Act, 2013 and SEBI Circular dated May 21, 2013, by a majority of the equity sharehol

The appellant had paid fees to a Management & Research institute on behalf of one of its director as training fees of director and had also paid salary to the director. Both were disallowed by the Assessing Officer during scrutiny. Aggrieved, the app

An assessee sold his depreciable business asset (a flat) for 35 Lakhs and computed capital gains u/s 50 at Rs. 12.52 Lakhs after deducting the WDV of the block of assets from the sale price received. However, as per the AO, the stamp duty value of th

The Appellant is a manufacturer of products falling under Chapters 56 and 57 of the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985. According to the Department, the Appellant had not paid Central Excise Duty on the intermediate product viz. “non-woven fabrics” falli