Judgements and Orders, Supreme Court and High courts of India

While circulars and instructions issued by the Board are binding on the authorities under the respective statutes, but when the Supreme Court or the High Court declares the law on the question arising for consideration, it would not be appropriate fo

(i) S. 94(7) was inserted prospectively w.e.f. 1.4.2002 to disallow dividend stripping losses. If the argument of the Revenue that even transactions prior to s. 94(7) can be disallowed is accepted, it will render s. 94(7) redundant and also lead to a

Where the Tribunal did not pass an order on the appeal despite considerable delay and instead fixed the matter repeatedly for ‘clarifications’ and thereafter closed the matter for orders on the basis of written submissions and without hearing the ass

Where the assessee entered into an agreement for transfer of its industrial undertaking under which the buyer agreed to pay it interest on the unpaid consideration w.e.f 1.3.1977 and subsequently on 30.6.1978 the parties agreed to defer the date of c

Revenue wins major battle in Apex Court; Central Excise - Mandatory Penalty - Section 11AC - No discretion to reduce penalty; Income Tax - Sec 271(1)(c) - penalty is civil liability and wilful concealment is not essential ingredient for attracting

sales tax - works contract - programming and providing computer software - consultancy charges - finding of additional commissioner upon scrutiny of books and invoices and profit and loss account that dealer engaged in application software developmen

Whether compulsory deduction made by sugar cooperative societies on account of non-refundable and refundable deposits and other funds are revenue receipts liable to be taxed under the Income Tax Act.

Section 28(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business loss/deductions - Allowable as - Assessment year 1986-87 - ‘A’ Ltd., which carried on business of a financier, was amalgamated with assessee-company - Prior to its amalgamation, ‘A’ Ltd. had issued

Developing and selling unbranded software, the authority for clarification relying on the decision in Tata Consultancy Services Vs State of Andhra Pradehs [1997] 105 STC 421 (AP) clarified that the peritioner was not eligible to issue Form XVII for p