Income Tax Judgements

The dispute began when the Municipal Corporation of Delhi proposed to enhance, with effect from 01.04.1999, the rateable value from the existing rateable value of `11,400/- to `1,50,000/- on account of letting of the ground floor. It be highlighted t

) (A) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A)-XII, has grossly erred in confirming the brought forward “SHARE APPLCIATION FORFEITURE ACCOUNT” as unclaimed credit and thus, confirming addition for ` 25,00,000/- to the declared

. Brief ly stated facts of the case are that the assessee derives income from Hiring of Cranes to ONGC and other oi l refineries, management services to group companies, dividends and interest from investments and income from sale of investment and T

On facts and circumstances of the case, whether the learned CIT(A) has erred in allowing exemption u/s 10(10CC), where the facts clearly establish that the tax paid by the company M/s Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling Inc. for assessment year 20

This appeal is directed against the Tribunal’s order dated 19th May, 2006 for the block assessment period 1.4.1988 to 14.10.1998. The main issue raised is in respect of the deletion by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal of the addition of about ` 51.52 lacs

This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the ct”) against the order dated 25.4.2008 passed by learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“the Tribunal” for short) in Appeal No.1056/DEL/2006 for the assessment year 20

Whether expenditure (including interest paid on funds borrowed) in respect of investment in shares of operating companies for acquiring and retaining a controlling interest therein is hit by section 14A of the Income tax Act, 1961 inasmuch as the div

The present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) has been preferred by Sood Brij & Associates, a partnership firm, consisting of two partners namely A.K. Sood and B.M. Gupta, who are practicing Chartered Accountants.

Two appeals had been filed by the revenue, while the third appeal had been filed by the assessee. The revenue had filed appeals for both the assessment years, i.e., 1997-98 and 1998-99, while the assessee had filed an appeal only qua assessment year

The High Court, vide its impugned Judgment and Order dated 25.07.2005, has declared that Section 87(m)(ii) (b) of Finance (No.2) Act, 1998 is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India insofar as it seeks to deny the benefit of the ‘Kar Viv