07 July 2010 : Kanchanganga Sea Foods Ltd. -vs- CIT
When 85% of the catch is received after valuation by the non-resident company in India, in sum and substance, it amounts to receipt of value of money more ...

06 July 2010 : CIT -vs- Walfort Share & Stock Pvt. Ltd.
Under sec.94(7), the loss to be ignored would be only to the extent of the dividend received and not the entire loss more ...

07 May 2010 : JCIT -vs- Saheli Leasing & Industries Ltd.
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is leviable even no tax is payable more ...

05 July 2010 : CIT -vs- Honda Siel Power Products Ltd.
The expression prejudicial to the interest of revenue appearing in Section 263 has to be read in conjunction with the expression “erroneous” and that every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In cases where the Assessing Officer adopts one of the courses permissible in law or where two views are possible and the Income-tax Officer has taken one view, the Commissioner of Income-tax cannot exercise his powers under Section 263 to differ with the view of the Assessing Officer even if there has been a loss of revenue. more ...

02 July 2010 : DIT (Exemption) -vs- Bagri Foundation
The scheme of the section indicates that the additional condition by way of explanation to the section 11(2) is also intended to apply only to accumulations in excess of 15% under Section 11(2) and not to accumulations upto 15% under Section 11(1)(a) more ...

01 July 2010 : Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. -vs- ACIT - Transfer Pricing Officer
The onus is on the assessee to satisfy the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) that the arm's length price computed by it is in consonance with sec. 92, the TPO can reject the price computed by the assessee only if he finds that the data used by the assessee is unreliable, incorrect or inappropriate or he finds evidence, which discredits the data used and/or the methodology applied by the assessee. Further Transfer Pricing Law for advertisement expenditure and use of foreign trademark is laid down more ...

22 March 2010 : E*Trade Mauritius Ltd. -vs-
Tax on Capital gain is not liable to be charged in India in respect of transfer of shares by a Mauritian company held in an Indian company to another Mauritian company more ...

21 December 2009 : Wavefield Inseis ASA -vs-
Once Section 44BB is attracted, it is common ground that the computation has to be made in accordance with that provision and no other special provision, viz., Section 44DA or Section 115A would come into play in view of the fact that the payment is being made by a non-resident to another non-resident more ...

30 June 2010 : DCIT -vs- Times Guaranty Ltd.
Brought forward unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years cannot be included within the scope of section 32(2) more ...

11 June 2010 : Abhay Devilal Rathod -vs- DCIT
Merely because money is claimed to have been transferred through banking channel, it is not enough to establish the genuineness of gift. The assessee is required to discharge the onus of submitting complete details of gifts before the AO. Assessee should have established (i) the identity of the donor; (ii) creditworthiness of the donor; (iii) genuineness of the transaction; (iv) occasion; (v) relationship of the donor and donee; (vi) evidence of natural love and affections. more ...

07 June 2010 : Cartier Shipping Co. Ltd. -vs- DDIT (IT)
The cessation of permanent establishment is relevant only for the purposes of taxability of business profits, and has no impact on the taxability of capital gains of alienation of the PE or its assets more ...