Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.42 seconds)
Rahil Impex P.Ltd, Mumbai vs Assessee on 10 June, 2016 cites

Union Of India And Anr vs Azadi Bachao Andolan And Anr on 7 October, 2003

The assessee had made use of the said provision of the Act. That such use cannot be called 'absuse of law'. 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 v. 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.
Supreme Court of India Cites 94 - Cited by 747 - Full Document

C.I.T.,Mumbai vs M/S.Walfort Share & Stock Brokers P.Ltd on 6 July, 2010

The Ld A.R submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of CIT Vs. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P Ltd (2010)(326 ITR 1) that the better use of the provisions of the Act cannot be called "abuse of law". In that case, the assessee had purchased mutual fund units just before the record date fixed for declaration of dividend, since the dividend income was exempt. After declaration of the dividend, the net asset value of the mutual fund units would go down and upon selling the units purchased, the assessee would incur loss. The dividend income was claimed as exempt and the loss was set off against the other income. The revenue took the view that the assessee has adopted a pre-planned method to claim exemption as well as set off. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 501 - S H Kapadia - Full Document
1