Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: finance act 2008 section 2 income tax Court: delhi Page 1 of about 48,101 results (0.341 seconds)

India Trade Promotion Organization Vs. Director General of Income Tax ...

Court : Delhi

..... a mask or device to hide the true purpose, which was 'trade, commerce or business'."from this, it is evident that the introduction of the proviso to section 2(15) by virtue of the finance act, 2008 was directed to prevent the unholy practice of pure trade, commerce and business entities from masking their activities and portraying them in the garb of an activity ..... ahmed, j.1. by way of this writ petition (as amended), the petitioner seeks the quashing of the first proviso to section 2(15) of the income-tax act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said act ) as amended by the finance act, 2008, on the ground that it is arbitrary and unreasonable and has no rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved and .....

Maxopp Investment Ltd and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.

Court : Delhi

..... provisions of rule 8d of the said rules has prospective effect and shall apply with effect from assessment year 2008-09 onwards.36. insofar as sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 14a are concerned, they have also been introduced by virtue of the finance act, 2006 with effect from 01.04.2007.this is apparent, first of all, from the notes on clauses of ..... of the total income?2. whether the provisions of sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) of section 14a inserted by the finance act, 2006 with effect from 01/04/2007, would apply retrospectively to all pending proceedings?3. whether rule 8d inserted by the income -tax (fifth amendment) rules, 2008 with effect from 24/03/2008 was procedural in nature and hence would apply retrospectively to .....

Ms. Madhushree Gupta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : (2009)225CTR(Del)1; [2009]317ITR107(Delhi); [2009]183TAXMAN100(Delhi)

..... in the nature of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under article 226/227 of the constitution of india quashing sub-section (1b) to section 271 inserted by finance act, 2008 as arbitrary, ultra virus and violative of article 14 of the constitution of india.b. a writ of certiorari or writ, order of direction ..... the nature of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under article 226/227 of the constitution of india declaring that sub-section (1b) to section 271 inserted by finance act, 2008 cannot be given retrospective effect from 1.4.1989.c. a writ of prohibition or writ, order of direction in the nature of prohibition ..... . the time frame for passing the order is contained in section 275 of the act.11. it is important to note that these provisions of section 271(1)(c) remain insulated from the amendment brought about by the finance act, 2008 whereby the impugned provision, that is, section 271(1b) was inserted.11.1 the reasons for bringing .....

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dalmia Agencies (P.) Ltd.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : [2010]186TAXMAN155(Delhi)

..... [2000] 246 itr 568 : [2002] 122 taxman 620 (delhi), no more remains valid in view of legislative amendment in section 271 by the finance act, 2008. by this amendment, sub-section (1b) is inserted to section 271 of the income-tax act retrospectively with effect from 1 -4-1989 as per which it is not necessary for the assessing officer to record such a ..... satisfaction. it is for this reason that on 18-7-2008, this court taking note of the aforesaid amendment ..... who come forward and opt for such a scheme by taking much more benefits which otherwise may not be available to such employees under the law. section 35dda of the act covers such a situation.in the present case, what we find from the orders of the assessing officer as well as cit (appeals) that assessee .....

Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Delhi

Reported in : (2010)228CTR(Del)262; [2010]320ITR420(Delhi); [2009]185TAXMAN74(Delhi)

..... . whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the tribunal erred in law in not appreciating the amendment to section 35-d of the act vide finance act 2008 is clarificatory in nature and therefore should be applicable retrospectively?8. we now proceed to determine these questions.9. re - question no. ..... not admissible to deduction as business expenditure since the same is not treated as revenue deduction however by taxation laws (amendment) act 1970 the legislature introduced section 35-d of the act which came into force with effect from 141971 it enables amortization of specified preliminary expenses which are otherwise not admissible deductions expenditure ..... common question of which arises for consideration, which relate to interpretation of section 35-d of the income tax act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act'). for the purpose of convenience, we are taking note of the facts of ita no. 1261/2008.2. the appellant is a widely held public limited company engaged in .....

Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. (Now Merged With Pepsico Ind Vs. Assistant Comm ...

Court : Delhi

..... with a similar situation and entertained the writ petition. in the said case constitutional validity of the third proviso inserted in section 254(2a) of the act by finance act, 2008, w.e.f. 1 st october, 2008 was challenged it was observed that the proviso enacted a stringent provision as a result of which even if the delay in ..... relevant: 26. in view of the aforesaid discussion, we have reached the following conclusion:(i) in view of the third proviso to section 254(2a) of the act substituted by finance act, 2008 with effect from 1st october, 2008, tribunal cannot extend stay beyond the period of 365 days from the date of first order of stay. (ii) in case default ..... a plain meaning of the provisos, as they stood. there was no challenge to the constitutional validity of the third proviso to section 254(2a) of the said act after the amendment introduced by the finance act, 2008. no decision of any high court has been brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the parties, wherein the .....

Aspect Software Inc Vs. Astt. Director of International Taxation and ...

Court : Delhi

..... with a similar situation and entertained the writ petition. in the said case constitutional validity of the third proviso inserted in section 254(2a) of the act by finance act, 2008, w.e.f. 1 st october, 2008 was challenged it was observed that the proviso enacted a stringent provision as a result of which even if the delay in ..... relevant: 26. in view of the aforesaid discussion, we have reached the following conclusion:(i) in view of the third proviso to section 254(2a) of the act substituted by finance act, 2008 with effect from 1st october, 2008, tribunal cannot extend stay beyond the period of 365 days from the date of first order of stay. (ii) in case default ..... a plain meaning of the provisos, as they stood. there was no challenge to the constitutional validity of the third proviso to section 254(2a) of the said act after the amendment introduced by the finance act, 2008. no decision of any high court has been brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the parties, wherein the .....

Ericsson Ab Vs. Addl. Director of Income Tax, Ors

Court : Delhi

..... with a similar situation and entertained the writ petition. in the said case constitutional validity of the third proviso inserted in section 254(2a) of the act by finance act, 2008, w.e.f. 1 st october, 2008 was challenged it was observed that the proviso enacted a stringent provision as a result of which even if the delay in ..... relevant: 26. in view of the aforesaid discussion, we have reached the following conclusion:(i) in view of the third proviso to section 254(2a) of the act substituted by finance act, 2008 with effect from 1st october, 2008, tribunal cannot extend stay beyond the period of 365 days from the date of first order of stay. (ii) in case default ..... a plain meaning of the provisos, as they stood. there was no challenge to the constitutional validity of the third proviso to section 254(2a) of the said act after the amendment introduced by the finance act, 2008. no decision of any high court has been brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the parties, wherein the .....

Pepsi Foods Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors

Court : Delhi

..... with a similar situation and entertained the writ petition. in the said case constitutional validity of the third proviso inserted in section 254(2a) of the act by finance act, 2008, w.e.f. 1 st october, 2008 was challenged it was observed that the proviso enacted a stringent provision as a result of which even if the delay in ..... relevant: 26. in view of the aforesaid discussion, we have reached the following conclusion:(i) in view of the third proviso to section 254(2a) of the act substituted by finance act, 2008 with effect from 1st october, 2008, tribunal cannot extend stay beyond the period of 365 days from the date of first order of stay. (ii) in case default ..... a plain meaning of the provisos, as they stood. there was no challenge to the constitutional validity of the third proviso to section 254(2a) of the said act after the amendment introduced by the finance act, 2008. no decision of any high court has been brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the parties, wherein the .....

Pepsi Foods Ltd. (Now Pepsico India Holdings) Vs. Deputy Commissione ...

Court : Delhi

..... with a similar situation and entertained the writ petition. in the said case constitutional validity of the third proviso inserted in section 254(2a) of the act by finance act, 2008, w.e.f. 1 st october, 2008 was challenged it was observed that the proviso enacted a stringent provision as a result of which even if the delay in ..... relevant: 26. in view of the aforesaid discussion, we have reached the following conclusion:(i) in view of the third proviso to section 254(2a) of the act substituted by finance act, 2008 with effect from 1st october, 2008, tribunal cannot extend stay beyond the period of 365 days from the date of first order of stay. (ii) in case default ..... a plain meaning of the provisos, as they stood. there was no challenge to the constitutional validity of the third proviso to section 254(2a) of the said act after the amendment introduced by the finance act, 2008. no decision of any high court has been brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the parties, wherein the .....