Judgements and Orders, Supreme Court and High courts of India

Pre S. 94(7) dividend stripping loss cannot be disallowed. Transaction cannot be ignored on ground that it is for tax-planning

New Delhi: Two-wheeler makers will now have to sell a helmet along with their bikes and scooters after the Supreme Court dismissed a plea by the Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers against such a step. A Bench comprising Justice G S Singhvi

The assessee, engaged in the manufacture of cement, entered into an agreement with M/s Walchandnagar Industries Limited, Bombay, ("the supplier") on 1st September, 1967 for purchase of additional cement plant from them for a total consideration of Rs

Pre S. 94(7) dividend stripping loss cannot be disallowed. Transaction cannot be ignored on ground that it is for tax-planning

DEPB sale proceeds cannot be bifurcated into “profits” and “face value”. The entire amount is “profits” for s. 80HHC r.w.s. 28(iiid)

The Supreme Court on February 2, 2010 delivered a judgment in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Hotel Blue Moon [2010] 188 Taxman 113, [along with other 5 appeals heard together] against the Income-tax Department. The only issue for the determination of the

Though in Section 68 proceedings, the initial burden of proof lies on the assessee yet once he proves the identity of the creditors/share applicants by either furnishing their PAN number or income tax assessment number and shows the genuineness of t

The assessee had received interest free deposit in respect of shops given on rent. The Assessing Officer added to the assessee’s income notional interest on the interest free deposit at the rate of 18 per cent simple interest per annum .

Router and switches can be classified as a computer hardware when they are used along with a computer and when their functions are integrated with a ‘computer’

Where the Assessing Officer has not carried out necessary enquiry which ought to have been carried out for allowing deduction to the assessee under section 40(b), the order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest