Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Tribunal Partially Upheld CIT's Section 263 Decision on LTCG, Loss Setoff</h1> <h3>M/s Mind Tree Ltd., (Formerly M/s MindTree Consulting (P) Ltd.) Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-III,</h3> M/s Mind Tree Ltd., (Formerly M/s MindTree Consulting (P) Ltd.) Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-III, - TMI Issues Involved:1. Invocation of provisions u/s 263 by the CIT.2. Disturbance in the computation of Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG).3. Disallowance of provisions for warranty and discount.4. Verification of set off of brought forward losses.Summary:1. Invocation of Provisions u/s 263:The assessee contended that the CIT was not justified in invoking the provisions of s. 263 as the order of the AO was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of revenue. The CIT initiated proceedings u/s 263, stating that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue due to lower taxation of LTCG on mutual funds, allowance of contingent provisions for warranty and discount, and inadequate verification of set off of capital loss. The Tribunal upheld the CIT's invocation of s. 263, agreeing that the AO had not adequately considered the issues and that the CIT's actions were within his jurisdiction.2. Disturbance in Computation of LTCG:The CIT directed the AO to re-examine the computation of LTCG, suggesting that the tax on LTCG should be calculated at 10% without allowing the benefit of indexation as per s. 112 of the Act. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT's direction, noting that the CIT had only asked for verification of the arithmetical accuracy of the LTCG computation in accordance with s. 112, and thus, the assessee's apprehension was unfounded.3. Disallowance of Provisions for Warranty and Discount:The CIT disallowed the provisions for warranty and discount, considering them contingent liabilities as per the Audit Report in Form 3CD. The Tribunal, however, noted that the provisions were based on consistent accounting practices and judicial precedents, and thus, were not contingent in nature. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for re-examination, directing the AO to consider the assessee's contentions and judicial rulings while making a decision.4. Verification of Set Off of Brought Forward Losses:The CIT directed the AO to verify the correctness of the set off of brought forward losses, as there was no evidence of such verification in the AO's order. The Tribunal found no abnormality in the CIT's direction, emphasizing the need for verification to ensure the accuracy of the assessee's claim.Conclusion:The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal, upholding the CIT's invocation of s. 263 and directions regarding LTCG and set off of losses, but remitting the issue of provisions for warranty and discount back to the AO for re-examination. The order was pronounced on 26th September 2011 at Bangalore.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found