• Follow
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com   

Income Tax Case Laws - Section: 79

Home Case Index Income Tax Sections List
Cases for Section: 79
Showing 1 to 15 of 57 Records

2016 (1) TMI 582 - DELHI HIGH COURT

Yum Restaurants (India) Private Limited And Commissioner Of Income Tax-09 Versus Income Tax Officer And Yum Restaurants (India) Private Limited

Carry forward accumulated business losses - change in shareholding - Held that - As there was indeed a change of ownership of 100 shares of Yum India from Yum Asia to Yum Singapore, both of which were distinct entities. Although they might be AEs of Yum USA, there is nothing to show that there was any agreement or arrangement that the beneficial owner of such shares would be the holding company, Yum USA. The question of piercing the veil at the instance of Yum India does not arise. In the circumstances, it was rightly concluded by the ITAT that in terms of Section 79 of the Act, Yum India cann ....... - .......

2016 (1) TMI 1027 - ITAT MUMBAI

Inter Gold Gems Pvt. Ltd. Versus Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax –Range 5 (2) , Mumbai.

Rectification of mistake - Carry forward and set off of losses in the case of certain companies - Held that - There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the share holding pattern, now presented before us, was not available before the tax authorities as well as the Tribunal during the hearing of appeal. The assessee has accepted throughout the proceedings that there was change in share holding pattern by more than 51 . The decision on the issue of eligibility of the assessee to set off the brought forward losses was adjudicated on the basis of the above said facts originally presented by ....... - .......


The Commissioner of Income-Tax, The Income-Tax Officer Versus M/s Amco Power Systems Ltd. (Now Known As. M/s. Amco Soft India Ltd.)

Entitlement to carry forward and set-off of business loss - assessee not owning 51 voting powers in the company as per Section 79 of the Act by taking the beneficial share holding of M/s. Amco Properties & Investments Ltd. - Held that - Dealing with a case under Section 79(a) and (b) of the unamended Section Clause (b) was deleted w.e.f. 01.04.1988 and while relating to Clause (a) of Section 79 of the Act, the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax V/S Italindia Cotton Private Limited (1988 (9) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court), held that the Section would be applicable only when there is change in ....... - .......

2015 (7) TMI 1051 - ITAT MUMBAI

Aegis Limited Versus Additional Commissioner of Income Tax

Transfer pricing adjustment - Held that - Accentia Technologies Ltd. (included by the TPO) be excluded from the list of comparables on account of its strategy to acquire companies for inorganic growth and also on account of absence of segmental information for ascertaining the comparability. - Coral Hub and Cosmic Global Hub,should be excluded from the list of final list and have benchmarking its financial transactions having significant intangible assets like goodwill, intellectual property and technical know-how, whose value is approximately 48.5 of its net block - Cross Domain Solutions Pvt ....... - .......

2015 (7) TMI 950 - ITAT KOLKATA

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-9, Kolkata Versus M/s. Varshana Investment Pvt. Limited, Kolkata

Disallowance of claim of depreciation on (i) Residential house property at 10, Mistry Manor, 62A, Napean Sea Road, Mumbai and (ii) Premises at C-6, Corianthian, 17 Off Arthur Bunder Road, Colaba, Mumbai - CIT(A) allowed claim - Held that - D.R. even though vehemently relied on the order of the Assessing Officer but could not adduce any cogent material or evidence before us, which may compel us to reverse the finding of the CIT(Appeals). It is not denied that the property No. 10, Mistry Manor, 62A, Napean Sea Road, Mumbai was allotted to Smt. Anita Krishna, Di rec tor so that she can look after ....... - .......

2015 (7) TMI 157 - ITAT AHMEDABAD

GE India Industrial Private Limited (Formerly GE Lighting India (P) Ltd.) and others Versus Dy. CIT Kheda Circle Nadiad and others

Transfer pricing adjustment - Selection of comparable - Held that - CIT(A) was not justified in giving any opinion about the correctness or otherwise of the TPO s order for Assessment Year 2005- 06, because that was not under appeal before him. However, be that as it may be, we have heard both the parties with regard to the method to be followed while comparing the raw-material component of the assessee as well as comparables. After considering the arguments of both the sides and facts of the case, we find force in the contention of the ld. Counsel of the assessee that the ratio of raw-materia ....... - .......

2015 (5) TMI 186 - ITAT DELHI

DCIT, Circle 6(1), New Delhi Versus Messe Dusseldorf India (P) Ltd.

Claim of brought forward of unabsorbed depreciation - change in shareholding - applicability of restriction u/s 79 - Carry forward losses already exhausted - Held that - Assessee is not carrying forward and setting off any loss but has unabsorbed depreciation, which is guided by the provisions of section 32(2) and not section 79. In view of the factual position on record of the AO, the submissions made before the undersigned and in view of the ratio laid down in the case of Subhulaxmi Mills Ltd. 1995 (9) TMI 2 - SUPREME Court by the Hon'bl ....... - .......

2015 (3) TMI 535 - ITAT BANGALORE

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 12(4), Bangalore. Versus M/s. Tejas Networks Limited

Product Development Expenditure disallowed - CIT(A) sustained the disallowance as the expenditure resulted in the acquisition of rights in or arising out of scientific research - Held that - The expenditure that is sought to be excluded u/s.43(4)(ii) of the Act is an expenditure which the assessee incurs in acquiring rights in or arising out of scientific research already done by somebody. It is possible that the assessee without carrying out any scientific research, acquires rights in scientific research, arising out of scientific research done by somebody else and claims cost of acquisition ....... - .......

2014 (12) TMI 600 - ITAT DELHI

Yum Restaurants (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus ITO Ward-18(4), New Delhi

Transfer pricing adjustment - Disallowance of excessive AMP expenses - Advertisement Marketing and Sales Promotion - assessee has a license arrangement with YRAPL for operation of various KFC and PH outlets in India Held that - In LG. Electronics India P. Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax 2013 (6) TMI 217 - ITAT DELHI it has been held that incurring of AMP expenses towards promotion of brand, legally owned by the foreign AE, constitutes a transaction - the TPO did not have the benefit of the Special Bench order in the case of LG Electronics and the DRP failed to apply it correct ....... - .......



Set off of business losses - selection of effective date of amalgamation - Held that - In view of the provisions Section 79 of the Income Tax Act, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal was right in confirming the order of the CIT(A)to allow relief of set off of business losses considering the date of allotment as the actual date of scheme of amalgamation. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Deduction u/s.80HHC - Tribunal considered the current year's profit without reducing therefrom the unabsorbed depreciation and unabsorbed investment allowance - Held that - As decided in CIT ....... - .......

2013 (8) TMI 409 - ITAT AHMEDABAD

GE India Industrial Pvt. Versus Deputy Commission Income-tax

Allowance of carry forward of loss on account of provisions of section 79 of the Income Tax Act Held that - Issue of carry forward would depend upon the finality of order for earlier years as it would have bearing on the year under appeal Issue is remitted to the file of AO to determine the carry forward losses based on the outcome to the decision for the earlier years. - Allowability of warranty expenses - Assessee debited expenses on account of warranty expenses - H'ble Apex Court in the case of Rotork Controls 2009 (5) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA has laid down the conditions which a ....... - .......

2013 (1) TMI 187 - DELHI HIGH COURT


Disallowance u/s 14A - assessee contested that as almost 99 of the assessee s income and activity pertains to tax free income/interest generated in these circumstances the quantum of disallowance i.e. 33 of the total expense was inadequate - Held that - Disallowance to be 33 which works out to Rs.38 lakhs i.e. a substantial mark-up of nearly Rs.34 lakhs over and above the disallowance reported by the assessee, the Court is of the opinion that having regard to the nature of activity engaged in by the assessee, the method adopted of apportioning 33 of the expenditure towards earning of tax free ....... - .......

2012 (8) TMI 804 - DELHI HIGH COURT


Entitlement to carry forward losses from the previous year 2001-02 and 2002-03 u/s 79 - whether the company-investors came within the description of those owning not less than 51 of the voting power beneficially through the two individual shareholders - Held that - As at the time of original incorporation (within the assessment year 2000-01) on 16.8.2000, the arrangement between the shareholders and real owner i.e. foreign investor companies, was always that the former were to facilitate the process awaiting approval. While such conclusion is permissible in law, lack of any discussion in the p ....... - .......

2012 (11) TMI 623 - ITAT AGRA

Peoples Heritage Hospital Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 1(4), Agra

Set off & Carry forward business loss - change in share holding - inclusion of share application money for determination of percentage of share holding - Held that - Share holding of the Company has changed by more than 51 and management and control of the company has been passed on to Pippal family. There is unabsorbed losses of Rs.29,94,643/- of A.Y. 2004-2005. CIT(A) rejected the assessee s contention that 72.8 of total paid share capital was introduced by family of Shri Hari Kishan Pippal during the F.Y. 2004-05 and not during the year under consideration has no merit in its case becau ....... - .......

2012 (8) TMI 557 - ITAT, MUMBAI

M/s. Tata Petrodyne Ltd., Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-16,

Brought forward business loss - benefit denied applying provisions of S79 - change in shareholding - Held that - Perusal of records shows that the shares of the Tata Industries Ltd. have been transferred to Tata Power Co. Ltd. Both the companies are companies in which public are substantially interested as both the company s shares are traded in the stock market. Hence, facts of the case are covered by provisions of Sec. 2(18)(b)(B)(c) and therefore the claim of set off of brought forward losses are not hit by provisions of Sec. 79 - Exclusion of depletion of Producing properties while computa ....... - .......


what is new what is new

Latest Updates




More Options


|| About us || Contact us || Feed Back || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map || ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Website