Download The Direct Tax Code Bill 2010
The ITAT Bar Association organized a felicitation function on 24th August 2010 in honour of Justice F. I. Rebello on his elevation as Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court
In CIT vs. Samsung Electronics 320 ITR 209, the Karnataka High Court that u/s 195 the payer was not entitled to consider whether the payment was chargeable to tax in the hands of the non-resident recipient or not. A batch of appeals challenging the said judgement was heard by a Supreme Court Bench of the Hon’ble Chief Justice S. H. Kapadia and Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. S. Radhakrishnan. After extensive hearing, judgement was reserved today (19.8.2010).
The sitting list and assignment of Judicial Work on the Original side on and from Monday, the 23rd August 2010 until further orders will be as under
The Bombay High Court today (12.8.2010) pronounced judgement in Godrej & Boyce vs. DCIT, the lead matter challenging the judgement of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in ITO vs. Daga Capital 117 ITD 169 on the applicability of s. 14A & Rule 8D.
After extensive hearing spread over several days, the Bombay High Court today (4.8.2010) reserved judgement in Godrej & Boyce vs. DCIT, the lead matter challenging the judgement of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in ITO vs. Daga Capital & the applicability of Rule 8D.
The Hon’ble President Shri. R. V. Easwar has passed the following order dated 5th July 2010: Sub: Appeals pending before L1 Bench, ITAT., Mumbai – reg. In supersession of all earlier orders on the above subject, all the appeals pending …
In Shreyas S. Morakhia the Special Bench has answered the question whether a share broker is entitled to deduction of bad debts u/s 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2) in favour of the assessee.
The following Order No. 81 of 2010 dated 9th July 2010 has been issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes to direct transfers / postings of officers in the grade of Commissioner of income-tax
In Wallfort Shares & Stock Brokers, a Five Member Special Bench of the Tribunal (96 ITD 1 (Mum) (SB)) and the Bombay High Court (310 ITR 421 (Bom)) held that the ‘loss’ incurred by an assessee in ‘dividend-stripping’ transactions cannot be disallowed on the ground that it was ‘tax-planning’. The department’s SLP against the said judgement has been dismissed by the Supreme Court today, 6th July 2010.
Recent Comments