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 income of an assessee in a previous year includes any income chargeable under the head Profits and gains of business of profession , arising from taxable securities transactions, he shall be entitled to a deduction, from the amount of income-tax on such income arising from such transactions. Section also provides the limit to which deductions shall be ....... - .......
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 of income tax chargeable on the total income of the assessee. The income tax is computed after arriving at the total income of the assessee and section 87 does not differentiate between the total income computed under the regular provisions of the Act or under section 115JB. - Provision of sections 87 and 88A to 88E also apply after the total incom ....... - .......
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 is assessed either under the provisions of the Act or under Section 115JB when tax chargeable on such income is arrived at & it is from that tax which is chargeable, the tax paid u/s 88E is g ....... - .......
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? - basically the capital was reduced by reducing the face value of Rs. 10/- paid up of each share to Rs. 5/- paid up of each share. As a second step such shares (Rs 5/- per share) were again consolidated into Rs. 10 paid up share and number of shares were reduced to 89,93,149. - Held that - even if a transfer had taken place, unless and until some ....... - .......
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 appropriate autho ....... - .......
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 per CBDT clarifications additional tax is treated a part of the tax - Commissioner has not committed an illegalit ....... - .......
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 from the designated authority - once the valid declaration has been made & as long as the declaration continues to be val ....... - .......
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 justice ? - (C) Whether the action of the respondent in including the tax liability for the disputed items which were originally included in the assessment by original authority, but set aside by the appellate authority and remanded back for de novo consideration as a disputed liability and make a demand under the KVSS ? On the ground that there is v ....... - .......
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 section 87(1)(a), the words the assessee can only mean the person who is bound to file the return of the incom ....... - .......
1970 (9) TMI 11 - ALLAHABAD High Court
Jaswant Rai Churamani Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax, UP., Lucknow.
....... - ...... 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 include the relief given to the said companies under the Concession Order for the Concession Order is not concerned with granting rebate but is concerned with the determination of the tax payable? - Held that - We agree with the High Court that though the rate applicable is the rate which is actually applied, rebate, if any, allowed to a company has not to be, as di ....... - .......