Deepak Kapoor vs ITO
Option of assessee to choose u/s 23(2)-Restriction on option-Ay- 2007-08. No restriction can be put on option of assessee u/s 23(4) to choose any property falling u/s 23(2) as SOP.
Ss. 23(2), 23(4) of the [LexDoc Id : 424991]
ITAT (Delhi)
2012
Relaxo Footwears Ltd. vs Addl. CIT
Expenses on exempt income-No income earned-Ay- 2008-09. The actual earning of an income in a particular year is not necessary to allow expenditure u/s 37(1). Similarly, earning exempt income is [LexDoc Id : 424954]
CIT and ITO vs Nova Nordisk Pharma India Ltd.
Contract for work v. sale of goods-Supply of goods manufactured on know-how supplied by assessee-A.Y. 1997. The assessee was selling pharma products like insulin.
The assessee was a subsidiary of NOVA of Denmark. NOVA supplied raw material to [LexDoc Id : 422857]
Raghbir Singh vs AA
Per-emptive purchase of property by Central Govt.-Opportunity and speaking order-The effect of the judgment of the Apex Court in:-
C.B. Gautam v. UOI, 199 ITR 530 (SC)
is that the AA must indicate reasons for the belief o [LexDoc Id : 422089]
HC (Delhi)
2012
Girnar Investment Ltd. vs CIT and Anr.
Interest for: Non-payment of tax-Effect of: Tribunal restoring A.O’s order-Ay- 1995-96. The assessee made part payment of demand and also filed an appeal. The CIT (A) granted some relief. The Tribunal restored A.O’s order. Th [LexDoc Id : 421895]
CIT vs S. Akbar Shah
Maintainability of: Department's Appeal to High Court-Low tax effect-A.Y. 1988-99.
The tax effect was lower than amount stated in CBDT's instructions No. 2 dt. 24.10.2005. No question of general importance was invo [LexDoc Id : 435330]
HC (Chennai)
2012
CWT vs Donatus Victoria Estates and Hotels (P) Ltd.
Wealth Tax-exemption from-Business Assets-property given on lease-A.Y. 1988-99, 92-93.
The assessee was in business of leasing properties. The value or property given on lease was exempt from wealth-tax.
S. [LexDoc Id : 433564]
HC (Chennai)
2012
CIT vs Mascomptel India Ltd.
Validity of assessment-Non-service of notice: at correct address-A.Y. 2006-07.
The notice u/s 143(2) was not served at the address given in the return. The service of notice by affixture and asstt made were inv [LexDoc Id : 429427]
CIT and Anr. vs Infosys Technologies Ltd. (No. 2)
"Erroneous" order-Order failing to given basis for grant of deduction-A.Y. 1995-96, 96-97. The A.O. did not give any basis for granting deduction under relevant DTAA. His order was erroneous. Order u/s 263 was valid. [LexDoc Id : 425397]
