Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter:

CIT vs. Narendra Desai (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 21, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

Receipt for agreeing to refrain from carrying on a competing business under a restrictive covenant is a capital receipt and is not chargeable to tax either as a revenue receipt or as a capital gain as ss. 28(va) and 55(2)(a)

Sumit Bhattacharya vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai Special Bench)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 21, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

(i) Amounts received by an assessee from the foreign holding company of his employer company on redemption of stock appreciation rights, being “fruits of employment” is chargeable to tax as “salaries” despite the absence of an employer-employee relationship (ii) there

CIT vs. Suresh N. Gupta (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 18, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

S. 158BB has to be read with the relevant Finance Act and the surcharge prescribed therein is applicable to a block assessment. The Proviso to s. 113 of the Act, though inserted by the Finance Act 2002 with effect from

Infosys Technologies (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 9, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

(i) A stock option which is subject to a ‘lock-in’ is not a chargeable perquisite u/s 17(2) on the date of grant, vesting or exercise. The benfit is purely notional. (ii) s. 17(2)(iiia) inserted w.e.f 1.4.2000 is not clarificatory; (iii)

Saurabh Srivastava vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi Special Bench)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 4, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

Consideration received by an assessee for agreeing not to compete constitutes a capital receipt even though (i) the period of restraint is only 18 months and (ii) the assessee continued service with the payer-company as Managing Director. Related Judgements Glenmark

Mayawati vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 4, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

s. 68 does not apply to an assessee who does not maintain books of account. Balance sheet/statement of affairs and bank pass book do not constitute ‘books of account’. In considering the genuineness of the “gifts”, it must be borne

Glenmark Laboratory vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 4, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

For purposes of s. 80HHC, the direct cost attributable to the earning of the DEPB license (equal to the value of the license on the date of receipt) has to be reduced from the direct cost of trading goods on

Top