Advanced Search Results

The Dcit Vs. Tata Investment Corporation Ltd.

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Subject : Direct Taxation

separately and the heads of income are as under: Section 14A of the I.T.Act was inserted by the Finance Act, 2001 with retrospective effect from 01.04.1962, which provided as under: Section 14A - For the purpose of computing the … 2679.29 Lakhs, which was claimed as exempt under the provisions of Section 10(33) of the I.T. Act. No part of expenditure had been allocated towards the earning of this income.The Assessing Officer invoking the provisions of Section … revenue are against the order of CIT (A) - XXXIII, Mumbai, dated 28.08.2003 relating to Assessment Years 2000-01 against the order under Section 143(3) of

Commissioner of Income Central Ii Vs. Suresh N. Gupta

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Direct Taxation

Acts : Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 2, 4, 4(1), 32, 32(2), 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C, 112, 113, 115A, 115AB, 115AC, 115ACA, 115AD, 115B, 115BB, 115BBA, 115E, 115JB, 132, 132A, 132B, 139, 139(1), 142, 142(1), 143, 143(1B), 143(2), 143(3), 144, 147, 148, 158B, 158BA, 158BA(1), 158BA(2), 158BB, 158BB(1), 158BC, 158BH, 161, 161(1A), 164, 164A, 167B, 245D and 245D(4); Finance Act, 2001 - Sections 2(1), 2(2) and 2(3); Finance Act, 2002 - Sections 113; Finance Act, 1995; Constitution of India - Articles 269, 270 and 271

Reported in : (2008)214CTR(SC)274; [2008]297ITR322(SC); JT2008(1)SC208; 2008(1)SCALE99; (2008)4SCC362; 2008AIRSCW1066

appeal.Points for determination:4. Two points arise for determination: Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case, the Finance Act, 2001 ('FA' for short) was applicable to 'block assessment' under Chapter XIV-B in respect of the search carried out … by a surcharge for purposes of the Union and the whole proceeds of any such surcharge shall form part of the Consolidated Fund of India.'Charge of income-tax.4.(1) Where any Central Act enacts that income-tax shall be charged … comprising of previous years relevant to 10 assessment years, i.e., 1991-92 to 2000-01, including the period from 1.4.2000 to 17.1.2001.FACTS3. On 17.1.2001 a search under

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Indian Syntans Investments (P)

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (2007)103ITD457(Chennai)

and the particular provision regarding "or a trade mark or brand name associated with a business" by the Finance Act, 2001, w.e.f. 1st April, 2002, "or a right to manufacture, produce or process any article or thing" was brought … 20th Dec, 2001. In response to these notices, the AO proceeded to frame the assessment and the assessee participated in the reassessment proceedings without prejudice to the right available under law as regards non-receipt of notice under … emanating out of the order of the CIT(A)-III, Chennai, dt. 4th Oct., 2002. The assessment was framed by the AO under Section 143(3) r/w Section

South Indian Bank Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Kerala

Subject : Direct Taxation

Acts : Income Tax Act - Sections 28, 36(1), 139, 142(1), 143(1), 143(1A), 143(3) and 156; Finance Act, 2001

Reported in : [2009]316ITR306(Ker); 2008(3)KLT326; [2009]176TAXMAN277(Ker)

debatable issue and is ceased to be so only by virtue of Explanation introduced to Section 36(1)(vii) by Finance Act 2001 with effect from 1.4.1989. The contention of counsel for the appellant is that as on date of completion … to in Section 28:.(vii) subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2), the amount of any bad debt or part thereof which is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee for the previous year:.Explanation: For

P.N. Tiwari Vs. Union of India

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : [2003]133TAXMAN482(All)

is also challenging the validity of section 17(2)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as inserted by the Finance Act, 2001 on the ground that it has delegated essential legislative powers and that it is violative of Articles 19(1) … it is violative of Articles 19(1) and 246 of the Constitution.2. We have heard learned counsels for the parties.It is alleged in para 2 of the petition that the petitioner is an Association of Officers of Airport

Procter and Gamble Hygiene and Health Care Ltd. Vs. C.C. and C. Ex.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Subject : Excise

Acts : Central Excise Act, 1944 - Sections 11A(1) and 35F; Constitution of India - Article 226

Reported in : 2004(165)ELT4(MP)

and bottling of liquor whether amounts to manufacture within meaning of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act 1944? Finance Act 932 of 1994), Section 65 (76 b) (as amended on 16.6.2005) - Held, The first limb of the … ORDERArun Mishra, J. 1. In these two writ petitions, the final order dated January 18th, 2001 (in W.P. 856/2001) and order dated 9-2-2001 (in W.P. No. 1595/2001) passed by the Commissioner of Customs & … dated 9-5-1995 to the Central Excise Department, informing the schedule (14) forming part of account of annual report for the year 1993-94. Five years balance-sheet

Asia Satellite Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Subject : Miscellaneous

Reported in : (2003)85ITD478(Delhi)

of stress was laid on the insertion of Clause (iva) to Expln. 2 to Section 9(1)(vi) by the Finance Act, 2001, w.e.f. 1st April, 2002. It was stated that this clause includes the use of any industrial, commercial or … or arose to the assessee in India. The Revenue is contemplating that the income falls under the latter part of Section 5(2)(b) namely "income deemed to accrue or arise in India". Hence we shall restrict ourselves to

Director of Income Tax (international) Taxation Vs. Oman International ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Direct Taxation

Acts : Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987 - Sections 28, 36, 36(1) and 36(2); Finance Act, 2001

Reported in : 2009(5)BomCR416; (2009)223CTR(Bom)382; [2009]313ITR128(Bom); [2009]184TAXMAN314(Bom)

thereof exceeds the credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts account made under that clause.The Finance Act, 2001 inserted the following Explanation after the proviso to Section 36(1(vii):Explanation - For the purposes of this clause, any … of the order of the Tribunal. Appeal is, therefore, admitted on the following question and by consent of parties heard forthwith:Whether as per the existing provisions even after the amendment with effect from 1-4-1989, is it obligatory … matters dealt with therein, in computing the income referred to in Section 28--(i) ... (ia) ... (ib) ... (ii) ... (iia) ... (iii) ... (iiia)

Seapearl Enterprises Vs. Dy. Cit, Cirecle-i, Alleppey

Court : Kerala

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : [2006]155TAXMAN483(Ker)

234A of the Act and based on Explanation 4 to the said section which now stands omitted by Finance Act, 2001 with retrospective effect from 1-4-1989. Even though the interest levied on petitioners is not consistent with the law … that the legislative amendment with retrospective effect made to overcome the decision of the Supreme Court is invalid, particularly in the absence of a validation provision. On the other hand, Counsel for the respondents contended that by … Petitions are filed by various petitioners challenging levy of interest under section 234A and section 234B of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter called 'the Act').

Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-I Vs. M/S. Container Corporation of ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Land Acquisition

Section 80-IA of the IT Act as the power of the said Board was taken away by the Finance Act, 2001 with effect from 01.04.2002. Learned senior counsel further contended that in view of the aforesaid amendment, the Notifications … being No.325/05-06 to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VI, New Delhi. Learned CIT (Appeals), vide order dated 29.05.2007, partly allowed the appeal while rejecting the deduction claimed under Section 80-IA of the IT Act. Being aggrieved, the … M/s Container Corporation of India Ltd. …..Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.8901 of 2012 CIVIL APPEAL No.4409 of 2014 CIVIL APPEAL No.4983 of 2015 CIVIL APPEAL