Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.21 seconds)
Accordis Beheer B.V , Mumbai vs Department Of Income Tax on 13 January, 2016 cites

Juggilal Kamlapat, Kanpur vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Lucknow on 31 July, 1969

It is the obligation of every citizen to pay tax honestly without resorting to subterfuge and in the case of Juggilal Kamlapat vs. CIT (1969) (73 ITR 702)(SC) wherein it was held that the Income-tax authorities were entitled to pierce the veil of corporate personality and look at the reality of the transaction. The court could go behind the legal form and find out its substance having regard to the economic realities behind the legal facade. The court had power to disregard corporate entity if it were used for tax evasion or to circumvent tax obligation or to perpetuate fraud.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 123 - J C Shah - Full Document

Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer on 8 February, 1990

The AR relied in case of Oudh Sagar Mill vs. ITO(35 ITD 76) (Mum) wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal was dealing a case where sale or exchange was being considered in the context of Section 41 (2). In that reference, the reference of reorganisation word was made. However, in the case of appellant, it is the case of alienation of shares under the buy back scheme. Hence, capital gain earned on such transfer is taxable as per Article 13(5) of the DTAA. I, therefore, of the opinion that the AO was right in taxing the capital gain arising on account of buy back of shares of CE Group. I, therefore, uphold the action of the AO on the reasons advanced by him. Accordingly, the findings of the AO are hereby upheld. "
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 36 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

The Securities & Exchange Board Of India ... vs Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. on 15 July, 2002

14. The Ld A.R also relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Securities and Exchange Board of India & Union of India Vs. Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd (Order dated 15-07- 2002 given in Appeal Lodging No. 520 of 2002 in Company petition No.203 of 2002 in Company Application No. 18 of 2002 & other)(113 Company cases 273) rendered under the Companies Act. We have gone through 10 I T A N o . 4 6 8 8 / Mu m / 2 0 1 0 A n d I TA N o . 5 0 2 5 / 2 0 1 0 the said decision and we notice that the issue considered therein was whether the Court can sanction buy back of its shares under a scheme of arrangement prescribed in sec. 391 of the Companies Act, when a specific section 77A is available for that purpose. Thus, we notice that the emphasis was given by the Hon‟ble High Court with regard to the scope of sec. 391 of the Act and it was not a case of finding out the meaning of the term "reorganization". Hence, we are of the view that the above said decision may not help to support the contentions of the assessee.
Bombay High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 19 - Full Document
1   2 Next