Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.20 seconds)Section 80M in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
C.I.T.,Mumbai vs M/S.Walfort Share & Stock Brokers P.Ltd on 6 July, 2010
However, the assessing authority had not quoted this as a circumstance vital to ignore the transactions as colourable transaction. The Assessing Authority did not quote this as a base to apply the decision in the case of Mc Dowell & Co., reported in (154 ITR 148). On the other hand, a reading of the assessment order shows that principally the reasoning of the Assessing Officer rested on Section 94(4). As far as the reliance of Section 94 is concerned, we do not think that such a reasoning would be justifiable one considering the fact that as held by the Apex Court in the decision reported in (2010) 326 ITR 1 (SC) (Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P.Ltd.,), the inclusion of units as a security for the purpose of applying Section 94 comes only with effect from 1.4.2002; thus the provisions under Section 94 itself is not applicable to the assessment under consideration. Consequently, the Assessing Authority was not justified in rejecting the transaction as not genuine.
Section 73 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 14A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Union Of India And Anr vs Azadi Bachao Andolan And Anr on 7 October, 2003
Even assuming that the transaction was pre-planned there is nothing to impeach the genuineness of the transaction. With regard to the ruling in McDowell and Co., Ltd., V. CTO (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC), it may be stated that in the later decision of this court in Union of India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan (2003) 263 ITR 706 it has been held that a citizen is free to carry on its business within the four corners of the law.
Section 260A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
The Finance Act, 2018
1