Income Tax Judgements

HC judgment on expenses on coronary by-pass operation not deductible u/s 31 or 37(1) of the IT Act

During the assessment year 1997-98 the assessee received `50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) from Ranbaxy as non-competition fee. The said amount was paid by Ranbaxy under an agreement dated 31.3.1997. Assessee is a part of Gufic Group. Assessee a

A short question which arises for determination in this batch of cases is – whether interest under Section 234B can be charged on the tax calculated on book profits under Section 115JA? In other words, whether advance tax was at all payable on book p

The issue involved in this batch of civil appeals, by special leave, filed by the Department relates to the question whether MAT credit admissible in terms of Section 115JAA has to be set off against the tax payable (assessed tax) before calculating

Appellants are the owners of property bearing No.B-68, Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi and they let out the same at a monthly rental of Rs.2,50,000/- with effect from Ist June, 1991 for a period of nine years renewable for a further period of nine

Penalty u/s 271(1)(C) – concealment of income – held that - there was a difference of opinion and there were three decisions in favour of the assessee which was ultimately decided against the assessee only after the return was filed by him and conseq

In this case, the ITAT gave an order favouring the I-T departments decision to levy tax on $1 million (about Rs 4.5 crore) paid by an Indian company to a Chinese firm for services rendered in China.

The only issue in assessee's appeal is against the adjustment of Rs.21,95,034/- made by the Transfer Pricing Officer in respect of transaction with associated enterprises which has been partly confirmed by Ld. CIT(A). The company is engaged in the ma

Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah was hearing the plea of RTI applicant Rakesh Kumar Gupta who had sought inspection of records in a case at ITAT, related to Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre.

In this case, the income being subject to tax is $I million paid by Indian company Ashapura Minechem to China Aluminium International Engineering Corp. The payment was made for services rendered by the Chinese company for bauxite testing. The final r