2013 (5) TMI 669 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Commissioner of Income Tax - II Versus M/s MBL & Co. Ltd., M/s Multiplex Capital Ltd.
Rebate in respect of securities transaction tax u/s 88E - whether was liable to be adjusted from the tax as payable for the purpose of Section 115JB or is not relevant/material? - MAT - ITAT allowed the claim - Held that:- U/S 88E where the total in ......
2012 (7) TMI 743 - ITAT, KOLKATA
Nakamichi Securities Limited Versus Commissioner of Income Tax
Assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 by CIT(A) - AO had not considered the fact that the assessee had paid lesser tax than it was obliged to do under MAT - Held that:- Looking at the provisions of section 87 the rebate is to be granted from the amount ......
2011 (10) TMI 489 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Commissioner of Income-tax Versus Horizon Capital Ltd.
Rebate u/s 88E from the tax computed u/s 115JB - assessee engaged in the business of purchase and sale of shares – STT paid – Held that:- If the transaction on which STT is paid is included in the total income of the assessee where the total income i ......
2011 (9) TMI 1 - ITAT MUMBAI
Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. Versus Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-1(1)
Relinquishment of Asset - extinguishment of rights - Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in declaring long term capital loss of Rs. 22,21,85,693/- on account of reduction in paid up equity share capital ......
2007 (4) TMI 237 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus SHASENAN M. PARPAI
In a matter of Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme or any such statutory scheme, as the case may be, the courts have no power to act beyond the terms of the statutory scheme under which the benefits have been granted to the assessee – matter remitted to the ap ......
2006 (7) TMI 116 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
HL TANEJA Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND OTHERS
Petitioner is assailing the assessment made under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme - submission of the petitioner is that the disputed income has been worked out on the basis of disputed tax which does not include levy of additional tax u/s 143(1A) – as ......
2006 (4) TMI 114 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
NISHIT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY P. LTD. Versus INCOME-TAX OFFICER
During the pendency of appeal before ITAT, in respect of Unexplained Investment, Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme was introduced – assessee made declaration to designated authority & after payment of tax as per the KVSS assessee received a due Certificate f ......
2002 (11) TMI 62 - MADRAS High Court
M Kaliannan Versus Commissioner of Income-Tax.
(A) Whether the order passed by the respondent is vitiated by non-application of mind, arbitrariness and is violative of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme provisions ? - (B) Whether the order is vitiated for failure to follow the principles of natural ju ......
1971 (8) TMI 70 - KERALA High Court
PK Yeshodamma Versus Commissioner of Income-Tax, Kerala.
Whether assessee was entitled to the rebate contemplated u/s 87(1)(a) in respect of the sum being the insurance premium on the policy of the life of the assessee's husband paid not by the assessee but by the assessee's husband - in the context of sec ......
1970 (9) TMI 11 - ALLAHABAD High Court
Jaswant Rai Churamani Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax, UP., Lucknow.
Amounts paid towards endowment policy which are refundable - claim for rebate u/s 87(1) ......
........... ulfilled. The Corporation has been doing business in life insurance since, the year 1956. The policy in question was issued in the year 1962. In the policy it was described as pure endowment assurance without profits. We have seen that the transaction is of the nature of life insurance business as defined, in the Insurance Act, 1938. Since payment of the sum assured depended on the survival of the assessee, this was an insurance on the life of the assessee. The assessee is an individual. It is not disputed that payment was made out of his income chargeable to tax. Thus, all the conditions mentioned in section 87(1)(a)(i) are satisfied in the instant case. We are of the opinion that the assessee is entitled to rebate on the amount of Rs. 4,687. We, therefore, answer the question referred to the court in the affirmative, and in favour of the assessee. The Commissioner of Income-tax shall pay the assessee Rs. 200 as costs of this reference. Question answered in the affirmative.
1964 (5) TMI 6 - SUPREME Court
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Delhi And Rajasthan Versus Anant Rao B. Kamat
Whether the rate applicable to the total income of the said companies was the rate as finally applied after taking into consideration the effect of the Concession Order?
Whether the word " rebate " occurring in section 16(2) does not inclu ......