Category: High Court

Archive for the ‘High Court’ Category


SET Satellite (Singapore) vs. DDIT (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 22, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

The effect of Article 7 (1) of the DTAA and Circular No. 23 dated 23.7.1969 is that the income of a non-resident which is neither directly nor indirectly attributable to the PE cannot be brought to tax.

Court vs. State (BMW case) (Delhi High Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 22, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

With regard to the sting operation carried out by NDTV regarding the role of a defense lawyer (R. K. Anand) and the Special Public Prosecutor (I. U. Khan) in an ongoing Sessions trial commonly called the “BMW case” and the suo motu criminal contempt action undertaken by the High Court, the Court passed strictures against two senior advocates and directed that they should be prohibited from appearing before the Court and subordinate courts for four months and that they should be stripped of their designation as senior advocates. The case discusses important aspects of the law as to when abuse of an advocate and when abuse by an advocate can constitute contempt of the law.

CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs (Delhi High Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 13, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

the Supreme Court held that the assessee was not entitled to claim a deduction by way of a letter filed before the AO without filing a revised return. However, this judgement is limited to the power of the AO to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by revised return and does not impinge on the power of the Tribunal to entertain the claim by way of an additional ground.

CIT vs. Dodsal Ltd (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 13, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

It is not possible to accept the submission of the Revenue that once the AO comes to the conclusion that there is a breach of the mandate of Section 158BFA(1), then the penalty has to be mandatorily imposed. The terminology of section 158BFA makes it clear that the AO has a discretion in the matter of levy of penalty.

Comed Laboratories vs. UOI (Gujarat High Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 13, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

Writ petitions were filed challenging the constitutional validity of the provisions of Section 245HA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 under which the petitioners’ applications before the Settlement Commission are to be treated as having abated on account of failure of the Settlement Commission to pass orders under Section 245D(4) of the Act on or before 31.03.2008. In view of the fact that the Supreme Court was seized of an identical issue, the petitions were disposed of with the direction that the parties would abide by the decision of the Supreme Court and in the meanwhile the assessment proceedings would be stayed.

CIT vs. Vishnu Industrial Gases (Delhi High Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 12, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

Where the department had not disputed that the expenditure was deductible in principle but was only disputing the year in which the deduction could be allowed HELD, castigating the department, that as the tax rates were the same in both years, the department should not fritter away its energies in raising questions as to the year of deductibility/taxability.

CIT vs. Star Chemicals (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 30, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

It is clear from the reading of Section 36 (1) (vii) and Circular No. 551 dated 23rd January, 1990 that if the assessee has written off the debt as bad debt, that would satisfy the purpose of the Section.

Valvoline Cummins vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 1, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

In accordance with Instruction No.96 dated 21st August, 1969 issued by the CBDT where the income determined is substantially higher than the returned income, that is, twice the latter amount or more, then the collection of tax in dispute had to be held in abeyance till the decision on the appeal is taken

CWT vs. Value Capital Services (Delhi High Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 21, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

In a case where it is alleged that persons contributing share application moneys are bogus, it is quite obvious that is very difficult for the assessee-company to show the creditworthiness of strangers. If the Revenue has any doubt with regard to their ability to make the investment, their returns may be re-opened by the department.

CWT vs. Sona Properties (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 19, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

It is not open to the WTO u/s 16A of the W. T. Act to call for the report of the Valuation Officer after the assessment proceedings are completed and use that report to commence proceedings for reassessment. The jurisdiction conferred on the WTO is limited to calling for the report when the proceeding are pending and not when the Wealth Tax Officer becomes functious officio.

Top