Search Results For: Dr. K. Shivram


COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 22, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 23, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 40(a)(ia): Merilyn Shipping 146 TTJ 1 (Vizag) has binding effect in view of the SLP dismissal & the clarification in Janapriya Engineers (AP HC) and so amounts already paid during the year cannot be disallowed

The Tribunal had to consider whether in view of the Special Bench verdict in Merilyn Shipping & Transport 146 TTJ 1 (Vizag), a disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) could be made in respect of the amounts that have already been paid during …

Arcadia Share & Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Read More »

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: June 19, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 17, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): No penalty can be levied solely on the basis of admission made during survey if there is no corroborative evidence & no fault is found with the return of income

Though the assessee offered a sum of Rs. 1 crore during the survey on account of discrepencies, errors and omissions in the accounts, at the stage of the assessment, there is no reference to any incriminating material found during the …

ACIT vs. Crescent Property Developers (ITAT Mumbai) Read More »

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 10, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 16, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 1993-94
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): Wrong claim for depreciation by showing a finance or loan transaction as a lease transaction attracts penalty

(i) The detailed findings of the AO, the assessee not agitating the findings of the AO in quantum proceedings, no plea of factual discrepancies during quantum proceedings and appeals, even no such plea before AO during penalty proceedings and no …

Times Guaranty Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) Read More »

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 12, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 4, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 1998-99
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
The correct test to be applied is whether the partnership assets were converted to capital assets of the partners at the time of dissolution

The correct test to be applied is whether the partnership assets were converted to capital assets of the partners at the time of dissolution. This we find, was provided for in the dissolution deed itself which records in clause (3) …

Arvind Shamji Chheda vs. CIT (Bombay High Court) Read More »

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 25, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 25, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2014-15
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Non-Extension Of due date for filing ROI will cause “substantial hardship". CBDT must look into practical difficulties & take "just and proper" decision before 30.09.2014


Non-Extension Of due date for filing ROI will cause “substantial hardship“. CBDT must look into practical difficulties & take “just and proper” decision before 30.09.2014

In view of the fact that the Madras High Court has already directed the CBDT to examine the representation of the assessees in general, before 30.09.2014, we feel it appropriate that the above representation of the Petitioners is also considered by the CBDT. Though we do not wish to express any view of the legalities of various issues involved, it does appear to us, from the arguments advanced, that there will be substantial hardship caused to the assessees, if the date of filing Return is not suitably extended. We hope and trust that CBDT will look into all these practical difficulties enumerated above and take a just and proper decision on the matter, before 30.09.2014, as already directed by the Madras High Court. In case the Petitioners are entitled to any further relief in view of the orders passed in various petitions filed in other High Courts, this order would not preclude the Petitioners from claiming the same.