Judgements and Orders, Supreme Court and High courts of India

The assessee company is a non-banking finance company engaged in the business of consultancy, investments, finance and trading in shares.During the course of a survey conducted by investigation wing of the department on Shri Subodh Gupta, CA in 2003,

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

The Assessee Company is engaged in the business of manufacturing basic chemicals and chemical intermediates and is a Government of India enterprise.The present Appeal is a case of disallowance of payment of employees' contribution to the P.F. amounti

Commissioner of Income Tax – Versus – HDFC Bank Ltd.

The assessee company is a tax resident of United Kingdom incorporated under the laws of England. The assessee is engaged in the business of providing “foreign exchange deal matching system” which enables foreign exchange authorized dealers to effect

n this appeal, the order passed by the ITAT confirming that of the Commissioner of Income Tax was questioned. The assessee had bought 3 flats, one in his own name, another in the name of his wife and his own and the third in the name of his wife. The

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