Search Results for "capital expenditure"

468 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 468 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Bombay Hears Section 9 Petition for Interim Measures in Commercial Matter. Arbitration Act, 1996 invoked for pre-arbitral relief in a contractual dispute.

This petition, filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, sought interim measures from the Bombay High Court. The petitioner...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging Reopening of Assessment Under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 — Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period. Reopening Based on Non-Escapement of Income as Assessee Had Already Disclosed Full Details During Original Assessment.

The petitioner, Bajaj Energy Limited, a company engaged in energy business, filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2014-15 on 30th November 20...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Revenue's Appeal in Income Tax Case Regarding Advance Receipts and Expenditure Recognition for Holiday Scheme. Tribunal's order upheld as no substantial question of law arises from the Commissioner's revision under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The case involves two appeals by the Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax-7) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 16th March 20...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Assessee's Petition in Income Tax Reassessment Case Due to Change of Opinion. Reopening of Assessment Under Section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 Set Aside as No Fresh Tangible Material Existed After Original Assessment Under Section 143(3).

The petitioner, Skol Breweries Ltd., challenged the reopening of its income tax assessment for assessment year 2004-05 by the Deputy Commissioner of I...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal by Seller Against Union of India Over Forward Contract Dispute. Contract Held to be a Non-Transferable Specific Delivery Contract under Section 2(f) of Forward Contract (Regulation) Act, 1952, and Thus Not Illegal.

The dispute arose from a contract entered into in September 1960 between appellant Modi & Co. and the respondent Union of India, acting through the Di...