Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
CGST - Acts + GST Rates GST Ntf. GST Forms GST - Manual GST - FAQ State GST Acts SGST Ntf. I. Tax Manual
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commissioner of Income Tax-4 Versus M/s Vikabh Securities Pvt. Ltd.

Disallowance u/s 14A - Held that:- It is agreed between the parties that the issue raised herein stand concluded against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in the case "Godrej & Boyce Mfg.Co.Ltd. VS. DCIT, (2010 (8)77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ) - Decided against revenue

Claim of rebate under Section 88E - ITAT deleted the addition - Held that:- Revenue does not dispute the fact that for the Assessment year 2006-07 the claim under Section 88E made by the respondent-assessee was on th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

see is incorrect and/or bad.- Decided against revenue - Income Tax Appeal No. 2074 of 2013 - Dated:- 23-11-2015 - M. S. Sanklecha And G. S. Kulkarni, JJ. For the Appellants : Mr Suresh Kumar i/b Ms Padma Divakar For the Respondent : Ms Asifa Khan ORDER P. C. 1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961 (the Act) filed by the Revenue, challenges the order 31 January 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The Assessment year involved is A.Y.200708. 2. The .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, when the Revenue has not accepted the principles laid down by the said decision as evidenced by the SLP filed ? (3) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the claim of rebate under Section 88E of the Income Tax Act,1961 ?" 3. Regarding Question Nos.1 & 2: (a) It is agreed between the parties that the issue raised herein stand concluded against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in the case "Godrej & Boy .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

(supra). (c) Thus, question Nos.1 and 2 as proposed do not give rise to any substantial question of law. Accordingly, not entertained. 4. Regarding Question 3: (a) The respondent-assessee had in its return of income claimed rebate under Section 88E of the Act of ₹ 3.33 crores. Section 88E of the Act provides for rebate in respect of income earned on transactions on which securities transaction tax had been paid. The Assessing Officer did not accept the same and restricted the rebate to an .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to respondent under Section 88E of the Act by allocating the expenditure as done by respondent-assessee. (c) Being aggrieved, the Revenue carried the issue to the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order recorded the fact that the claim of the respondent-assessee for rebate under Section 88E of the Act for the earlier Assessment Year i.e. 200607 where allocation of expenditure was identical to that adopted in the subject Assessment Year had been accepted by the Revenue. Further the impugned .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || 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 Version