Category: High Court

Archive for the ‘High Court’ Category


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.

CIT vs. Arthusa Offshore (Uttarakhand High Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 23, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

The word “tax”in Articles 14(2) and 2(1)(b) of the India-USA DTAA includes “surcharge” and for purposes of Article 14(2) which provides that the rate of tax payable by a USA company shall not exceed 15% of the rate payable by domestic companies, the surcharge payable by domestic companies has to be included.

CIT vs. Lazor Syntex & CIT vs. Akshay Textiles Trading (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 9, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

In McDowell 154 ITR 148, the Court nowhere said that every action or inaction on the part of the tax payer which results in reduction of tax liability to which he may be subjected to in the future, is to be viewed with suspicion and be treated as a device for avoidance of tax irrespective of legitimacy or genuineness of the act.

CIT vs. Scindia HUF (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 9, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

The issue of notice under s. 16 (2) W. T. Act {s. 143 (2) I. T. Act} is mandatory for reassessment proceedings. If notice u/s 16 (2) {143 (2)} is not issued, the assessment order passed u/s 17 {s. 147} is not valid.

Top