New User / Register || Book Marks || Annual Subscription || Feed Back ||
Login: Stay
|| Forget Password ||
     
TMI - Tax Management India. Com  

Recent Discussionss:

Second hand equipment with EPCG Licence Necessity of RD 23 D Export goods from other manufacturer Service tax applicability on Directors remuneration Payment Made in Wrong Code TDS Payment done 94C instead of 94J Service tax on transport of coal to bio power plant court fee for filing appeal before Commssioner (Appeals) Re: Labour of supply works Service Tax on Services provided in J & K state

Income Tax Case Laws - Section: 246

 

Income Tax


Cases for Section: 246
 
Showing 1 to 15 of 397 Records
 

2013 (12) TMI 1058 - ITAT MUMBAI

Thirumalai Chemicals Limited. Versus DCIT, OSD 1(1), Mumbai

Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) – Expenses on catalysts - Held that:- A perusal of the copies of the invoice clearly indicates that the relevant product involved in the purchase is catalyst for phthalic anhydride in the form of ring - This does not sugg ......

2013 (1) TMI 437 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Sh. Lalit Wadhwa Versus Commissioner of Income Tax. Gurgaon and another

Attachment of petitioners bank accounts and rental income u/s 226(3) - disallowance u/s 10B and 14A - Held that:- The petitioners appeal against order dated 28.12.2011 u/s 246 wherein assessment was completed at an income of approximately four time ......

2013 (1) TMI 335 - KERALA HIGH COURT

SREEJA. K., Versus THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-I & ANR.

Search u/s 132 was conducted at the premises of the educational institution run by the Trust and at the residences of the Trustees – Opportunity of being heard - Issuance of pre assessment notice – Assessee file an WRIT Petition against assessment or ......

2012 (12) TMI 697 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

M JAYABALAN Versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI-VI & Others

Withdrawal of revision petition - rejecting of request as the petitioner had filed a Revision Petition waiving his right to file a first appeal before the CIT (A) - Held that:- As decided in CIT Versus D. Lakshminarayanapathi [1998 (12) TMI 12 - MADR ......

2012 (11) TMI 634 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

DR. RAJESH RAJORA Versus THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN INCOME TAX

Appeal u/s 246 - stay of demand - appeal and stay application both are pending since January, 2011 - held that:- Petitioner to file an application for expeditious hearing of the stay application, stated to be pending along with the appeal - On filin ......

2012 (8) TMI 778 - DELHI HIGH COURT

VIRGIN MOBILE INDIA PVT LTD Versus THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Assessee in default for non-compliance with Section-194H - imposed a TDS liability on Commission or brokerage - Held that:- The use of the expressions “discretion” and “subject to such conditions as he may think fit to impose in the circumstances of ......

2012 (4) TMI 292 - ITAT AHMEDABAD

Ajay Ispat (P.) Ltd. Versus Income-tax Officer, Ward-1(1)

Plea for admission of appeal for waiver of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) – assessee being defunct company struck off from the records of ROC on 27.05.2010 - CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on ground that since company is non-existent, there cannot be any ......

2011 (12) TMI 158 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

Maheshwari Agro Industries Versus Union of India

Whether the first appellate authority, namely, CIT(Appeals) or DCIT (Appeals) have inherent power to grant stay and decide the stay application filed along-with appeal/s filed before them u/s 246/246A of Act respectively – appeal preferred u/s 246A - ......

2011 (3) TMI 1383 - Allahabad High Court

CIT Versus District Excise Officer

Whether order passed under sub sections (6) and (7) of Section 206C of the Income Tax Act is appealable under Section 246 of the Act - Department is that only those orders which are specified under Section 246 of the Act are appealable, further submi ......

2010 (4) TMI 223 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

MCKINSEY AND CO. INC. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Deduction of tax at source- Non-resident- The petitioner is a non-resident company incorporated under the laws of the United States of America. The petitioner operates in India with branches at New Delhi and Mumbai. The petitioner has filed returns i ......

2009 (9) TMI 526 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

Commissioner of Income-tax Versus Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.

Deduction of Tax at source- The Tribunal had allowed appeals filed by resident assessee in respect of different assessment year holding that the resident assessee were not liable to deduct any part of the payment made by them to non resident supplier ......

2009 (3) TMI 401 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

JINDAL THERMAL POWER COMPANY LIMITED Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (TDS)

Income deemed to accure or arise in India – Remuneration of non-resident - (1) Whether the payments made to REOL attract tax liability under section 9(1) (vii) (c) read with the Explanation to section 9(2) of the Income-tax Act and whether Jindal was ......

2008 (12) TMI 88 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

BALMUKUND ACHARYA Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND OTHERS

Effect of deletion of the explanation w.e.f. 1.6.1999 on the right of appeal vis-a-vis intimation u/s 143 (1) – Since the case in hand relates to A.Y 1995-96, this explanation will be very much applicable - Tribunal was not justified in holding that ......

2008 (6) TMI 88 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus PRAKASH NATH

Provisional assessment - Tribunal was not justified in law in entertaining the assessee’s appeal against charging of interest u/s 139(8) & 215 in the order passed u/s 154, when the assessee had not challenged the enhancement of income – admittedly as ......

2008 (3) TMI 348 - ITAT BOMBAY-E

Sadhuram Patel And Sons. Versus Income-tax Officer, Ward 13 (2) (1), Mumbai.

Appealable Orders ......

........... eceived effective advantage or benefit and not merely depreciation which is notionally allowed or which is allowable. Therefore, for the purpose of section 50, during the relevant period of time, depreciation has been allowed mean depreciation actually allowed to the assessee. 15. In the present case, no such depreciation has been allowed to the assessee. Therefore, the written down value of the assessee in respect of that block of assets of trucks and trailers shall be the value brought down from the earlier years without reduced by depreciation allowance wherever the assessee has not claimed such depreciation allowance. When this undiluted figure of written down value is adopted, the sale consideration is less than the same, and there cannot be a short term capital gains. Therefore, we accept the contention of the assessee and delete the short term capital gains of Rs. 1,00,38,704 added by the Assessing Authority. 16. In result, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

 
   
 
 
1.... ..
 

 

what is new what is new

UpdatesKnowledge SharingSubscription CommunicationNewslettersMore Options




Go to Mobile Website Go To Top
© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.