Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 37 (0.76 seconds)
Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax,, vs Atlas Copco (India) Ltd.,, Pune on 10 January, 2018 cites

The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Cntl), ... vs M/S Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. Ludhiana on 28 August, 1997

08. The Department filed appeal before the Hon‟ble ITAT, Pune, against the order of the CIT(A) filed. In the statement of facts, almost similar discussion was made as discussed in the rectification order u/s. 154 of the Act and also the facts as stated by the CIT(A) and his decision. The AO also referred to the 5 ITA No. 2286/PUN/2014, A.Y. 2005-06 CBDT's Circular No. 68 dated 17/11/1971, contending that the Ld. CIT(A) had ignored the said circular wherein it was held that a mistake arising as a result of subsequent interpretation of law by the Supreme Court would constitute a mistake apparent from the records and rectification u/s. 154 of the Act could be made. The AO also referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd., 228 ITR 468 [1997] wherein it was held that the rectification u/s. 154 of the Act can only be made when a glaring mistake of fact or law committed by the officer passing the order becomes apparent from order.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 619 - Full Document

Bhauram Jawahirmal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 30 August, 1978

From the above, it is very much clear that in pursuance to the above mentioned share purchase agreement, the Board of Directors of the appellant company had to register the transfer of the CP shares in favour of the purchaser and for reasons mentioned therein in clause (g) above. A non- compete agreement to the entered into by the company with the sellers. This being the terms, it can very, well be said that cancellation of agreement and payment of nom-compete /non-solicitation fees with the Utkal Investment Ltd. by the appellant company had originated from the transfer of shares, which were nothing but the transaction in the form of capital asset. Therefore, payment made in connection with meeting up of the terms as laid down in the share purchase agreement could not be said other than in the nature of capital expenditure.
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 14 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next