Facts of the CaseThe assessee, Rajendra Seclease Ltd.,
engaged in the business of buying and selling shares, filed its income tax
return for the assessment year 2002-03. The company sold 2,255,500 unquoted
equity shar...
Fact of the CaseThe appellant, C & C Construction Pvt. Ltd.,
challenged the order of the Income Tax Tribunal (ITA No. 4000/Del/2007)
relating to Assessment Year 2003-04. The dispute concerned depreciation claimed
...
Facts of the
CaseMaruti Suzuki India Limited, the petitioner, sought
a writ against the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax to restrain recovery of
disputed tax demand for AY 2006-07 pending their appeal before the ITAT...
Facts of the
CaseRajendra Seclease Ltd., engaged in trading of
shares, dividends, and securities, filed its return of income for AY 2002-03,
reporting the sale of 2,255,500 unquoted shares at Rs. 5 per share (totaling...
Facts of the
CaseThe appellant, National Cooperative Development
Corporation (NCDC), filed multiple appeals (ITA Nos. 512/2011, 513/2011,
810/2011, 811/2011, 1139/2011, 1140/2011, 1141/2011) under Section 260A of the
...
Facts of the
CaseThe petitioner, Tata Teleservices Ltd, filed
multiple writ petitions (W.P.(C) Nos. 2024/2011, 2026/2011, 2027/2011,
2030/2011 & 2032/2011) challenging the vires of the proviso to Section
201(3) o...
Facts of the
CaseThe appellant, National Cooperative Development
Corporation, engaged in providing long-term finance under the National
Cooperative Development Corporation Act, 1962, claimed deductions under Section
...
Facts of the
CaseThe petitioner, Vodafone Essar Mobile Services
Limited, filed a writ petition challenging the vires of the proviso to
Section 201(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as inserted by the Finance (No.2)
Act...
Facts of the
CaseThe National Cooperative Development Corporation
(NCDC) filed seven appeals under Section 260A challenging the orders of the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for assessment years ranging from
199...
Facts of the
Case
Tata Teleservices Ltd filed multiple writ petitions challenging the
proviso to Section 201(3) on constitutional grounds.
The company argued that certain procedural and substantive rights
...