Advanced Search Results

Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Vs. Woodward Governor India P. Ltd.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Direct Taxation

Acts : Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 28, 29, 30 to 43D, 48, 50, 56, 143, 143(1), 143(2), 144, 145, 145(1), 145(2) and 145(3); Finance Act, 2002; Companies Act - Sections 209; Finance Act, 1967

Reported in : (2009)223CTR(SC)1; [2009]312ITR254(SC); JT2009(5)SC378; 2009(5)SCALE198; (2009)13SCC1; [2009]179TAXMAN326(SC); 2009(3)LC1519(SC); [2009] 5 SCR 738

Counsel next contended that on a proper and true interpretation of the amendment to Section 43A, introduced by Finance Act, 2002, Section 43A is clarificatory. According to the learned Counsel, the occasion for the clarificatory amendment arose in view of … the year(s) in which deduction would be admissible for the increased liability under Section 37(1).12. We quote hereinbelow Section 28(i), Section 29 Section 37(1) and Section 145 of the 1961 Act, which read as follows:Profits and gains of

Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority Vs. Union of India (Uo ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Direct Taxation

Acts : Finance Act, 2002; Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 10, 10(20), 10(20A), 28, 38 and 38(2); Bihar Industrial Areas Development Authority Act, 1974 - Sections 7 and 17; Cantonments Act, 1924 - Sections 3; General Clauses Act - Sections 3(3); Contract Act; Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950; Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961; Constitution of India - Articles 243, 243P, 285, 289, 289(1), 289(2) and 289(3)

Reported in : AIR2006SC2375; (2006)202CTR(SC)464; [2006]283ITR97(SC); [2006(4)JCR202(SC)]; 2006(5)SCALE321; (2006)5SCC100; 2006(1)LC713(SC)

the Central Bank of India, Jamshedpur bringing to the notice of the Manager of the Bank that the Finance Act, 2002 had brought about changes in the Income Tax Act and while Section 10(20A) had been omitted, an Explanation … the shareholders who run the trade and who can claim the income coming from it as their own. Section 28 which provides for the payment of interest clearly brings out the duality between the Corporation on the one

Virtual Soft Systems Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-i

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Direct Taxation

Acts : Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 28(1), 48, 143, 143(1), 143(1A), 260A, 271 and 271(1); Finance Act, 1975; Finance Act, 2002 - Sections 271; Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975; Finance Act, 1993; Finance Act, 1992; Finance Act, 1951; Income Tax Act, 1922 - Sections 23(5), 28 and 28(1); Constitution of India - Article 20(1)

Reported in : (2007)207CTR(SC)733; [2007]289ITR83(SC); JT2007(3)SC125; 2007(2)SCALE612; (2007)9SCC665

Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Ltd. : [1960]40ITR142(SC) . 11. Section 271(1)(c) was again amended by the Finance Act, 2002. Subsequent amendment was brought to the notice of the Bench hearing the Appeal. In the impugned order, the … CIT v. S.V. Angidi Chettiar : [1962]44ITR739(SC) which referred to the expression 'income tax' this judgment being under Section 28(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, Dooars Tea Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, West-Bengal : [1962]44ITR6(SC)

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ms. Real Image Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Chennai

Subject : Direct Taxation

Acts : Income Tax Act 1961 - Section 143(1), 55(2)(a); Finance Act, 2002 - Section 28(v-a)

"goodwill". He has also contended that introducing the provision in the statute with effect from 1.4.2003 vide the Finance Act, 2002 would indicate that it is the intention of the Legislature to tax such receipts irrespective of the assessment … Prayer:- Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras 'B' … Court in Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1964) 53 ITR 283. The aforesaid decision came to be challenged before the Supreme Court.The Supreme

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Narendra D. Desai

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Direct Taxation

Acts : Finance Act, 2002 - Sections 28; Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 55(2)

Reported in : (2008)214CTR(Bom)190

In para 11 of the judgment, the learned Tribunal has referred to the amendment of Section 28 by Finance Act, 2002. Sub-clause (va) was introduced w.e.f. 1st April, 2003. The relevant portion reads as under:(va) any sum whether received

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Zam Zam Tanners

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Direct Taxation

Acts : Income Tax Act, 1961- Sections 2(24), 17, 28, 41, 44, 45, 59, 80HHC, 139(1), 139(3), 143(1A), 143, 144, 147, 160(1), 256(2), 271, 271(1) and 280D; ;Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975; ;Finance Act, 2002 - Sections 271(1); ;Finance Act, 1993 - Sections 143(1A); ;Constitution of India - Article 141

Reported in : (2005)197CTR(All)221; [2005]279ITR197(All)

have been concealed or inaccurate particulars have been furnished.'Section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been further amended by Finance Act, 2002, by which Clause (iii) and Expln. 4 has been modified. After the amendment section reads as follows :'(iii) … have been payable by the beneficiary.(v) any sum chargeable to income tax under Clauses (ii) and (iii) of Section 28 or Section 41 or Section 59;(va) the value of any benefit or perquisite taxable under Clause (iv) of

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Aditya Chemicals Ltd. and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Direct Taxation

Acts : Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 2, 2(a),2(24), 2(45), 3, 4, 4(1), 5, 6, 14, 22(1), 22(4), 23(1), 23(2), 34(2), 64, 72, 80, 139, 39(1), 139(2), 139(3), 148, 153(1), 260A, 271, 271(2) and 271A ; Finance Act, 2002; Income Tax Act, 1922 - Sections 2 and 28(1); Finance Act, 1988; Finance Act, 1951 - Sections 2(7)

Reported in : (2005)197CTR(Del)241; [2006]283ITR458(Delhi)

23(1), 23(2), 34(2), 64, 72, 80, 139, 39(1), 139(2), 139(3), 148, 153(1), 260A, 271, 271(2) and 271A ; Finance Act, 2002; Income Tax Act, 1922 - Sections 2 and 28(1); Finance Act, 1988; Finance Act, 1951 - Section 2(7)Cases

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Parmanand M. Patel

Court : Gujarat

Subject : Direct Taxation

Acts : Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 - Sections 56; ;Marriage Act 1955 - Sections 15(2); ;Finance Act, 2002; ;Income Tax Act, 1922; ;Constitution of India - Article 141; ;Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 22A; ;Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 2(43), 139(1), 139(2), 142(2A), 143(3), 148, 256(1), 263, 271, 271(1), 271A, 271B, 272A(2), 274 and 275; Income Tax Act, 1922 - Sections 3, 3(1), 7, 12, 12(3), 12(4), 12B (4), 13, 18, 18A, 22A and 28

Reported in : (2005)198CTR(Guj)641; [2005]278ITR3(Guj)

the Act, etc. 6.3 Inviting attention to the amendment made to Section 271(1) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2002 it was submitted that the said provision as it originally stood granted powers only to the Assessing Officer … Commissioner of Income-tax V. S.V. Angidi Chettiar : [1962]44ITR739(SC) Shah J., speaking for the Court, while dealing with section 28 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 observed: 'The power to impose penalty under Section 28 depends upon the

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Electropack [Alongwith Misc.

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (2005)94TTJ(Ahd.)973

July, 1995, the proceedings initiated are not proper and just. 3. As per the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2002, to Section 158B, the definition of "undisclosed income" is reproduced as under: 158B(b) : 'undisclosed income' includes any … Authorised Representative that the miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue in case of Electropack--MA No. 26/2003, Megnatherm--MA No. 28/2003 and Connection--MA No. 27/2003 wherein the Tribunal has followed order of Tribunal in the case of M/s Electrotherm

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Direct Taxation

Acts : Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 28, 33, 37, 43, 43A, 43(1), 43(2), 145, 145(1) and 145(2); Companies Act - Sections 209(3); Income Tax Act, 1922 - Sections 10(2) and 10(5); Finance Act, 1967; Finance Act, 2002

Reported in : (2007)210CTR(Del)354; 142(2007)DLT650; [2007]294ITR451(Delhi)

arises is whether the Appellant is right in contending that amendment to Section 43-A brought about by the Finance Act, 2002 with effect from 1-4-2003 is merely clarificatory and, thereforee, retrospective. One reason for this contention is that the … foreign currency as compared to Indian currency would be a business loss eligible for claim of deduction under Section 28 of the Act. The contention of the Revenue, on the other hand, is that this fluctuation in foreign