Search Results For: Domestic Tax


M/s Meditech vs. JCIT (ITAT Jodhpur)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 25, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 5, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Entire law on s. 263 revision explained

It is trite that an order can be revised only and only if twin conditions of ‘error in the order’ and ‘prejudice caused to the Revenue’ co-exist. The subject of ‘revision under section 263’ has been vastly examined and analyzed

DCIT vs. M/s Silver Line (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 26, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 4, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Non-issue of s. 143(2) notice renders s. 147 assessment void. S. 292BB does not apply. If there is a conflict of judicial opinion, the view in favour of the assessee must be taken. Respondent can raise an additional ground in a Cross-Objection

(i) Now, the moot question for consideration is: Whether the non-issuance of a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act as alleged by the assessee-firm had vitiated the conclusion of the assessments u/s 147 read with s. 143(3) of the Act?

Mohd. Khasim vs. ACIT (ITAT Bangalore)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 26, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 4, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: block period
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
There is a perceptional difference in the operative force of section 271(1)(c) vis-à-vis section 158BFA(2). The charge against the assessee u/s 158BFA(2) could be, why they failed to compute true disclosed income out of the seized material.

On a comparative study of the scheme of assessment of undisclosed income for the purpose of block period, penalty impossible u/s 271(1)(i)(c) and penalty impossible on the undisclosed income in the block period, we find that income for the block

Usha Chandresh Shah vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 26, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 4, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
AO can assess on consideration of material available on record, surrounding circumstances, human conduct, preponderance of probabilities and nature of incriminating information / evidence available on record

We have already seen that the tax authorities have applied the test of human probabilities explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sumati Dayal and Durga Prasad More (supra) to disbelieve the claim of Long term Capital

The Stock Exchange, Bombay vs. V.S. Kandalgaonkar (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM: , ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 25, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 4, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 1989-90
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Income Tax Act does not provide for any paramountcy of dues by way of income tax. Government dues only have priority over unsecured debts

The first thing to be noticed is that the Income Tax Act does not provide for any paramountcy of dues by way of income tax. This is why the Court in Dena Bank’s case (supra) held that Government dues only

CIT vs. LIC Housing Finance Ltd (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: September 12, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 4, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2003-04
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Creation of a reserve was sufficient to entitle the assessee to claim the benefit u/s 36(1)(viii) and the assessee was not obliged to maintain the said reserve

This court held in the matter of Grasim Industries Ltd. (supra) that the condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 was that the order sought to be revised must be erroneous insofar as it was prejudicial to

Arvind Shamji Chheda vs. CIT (Bombay High Court)

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)

ACIT vs. P. Venkateswara Rao (ITAT Hyderabad)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 24, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 4, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
No transfer merely because development agreement is entered into

As can be seen from the observations made by CIT(A), he has given specific finding of fact that development agreement has not been acted upon by the developer till date. Therefore, he has concluded that as there is no willingness

Mulla Associates vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 25, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 3, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c) penalty for s. 40(a)(ia) disallowance is permissible

The law, in our humble view, would hold even where the disallowance leading to the variation between the assessed and returned incomes is u/s. 40(a)(ia), being independent of the provision where -under the same (disallowance) is effected. That is, the

All Gujarat Federation of Tax Consultants vs. CBDT (Gujarat High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 22, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 26, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2014-15
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Strictures passed against the CBDT for seeking to take advantage of its own wrong and disregarding genuine hardship of taxpayers. Due date for filing ROI extended to 30.11.2014 subject to charge of s. 234A interest


Strictures passed against the CBDT for seeking to take advantage of its own wrong and disregarding genuine hardship of taxpayers. Due date for filing ROI extended to 30.11.2014 subject to charge of s. 234A interest

(vi) The CBDT ought to have responded to the representation. Instead, it chose not to respond but later before this Court in no uncertain terms has termed such a request impermissible on the ground that the grievances are not sustainable. Therefore, considering the larger cause of public good and keeping in mind the requirement of promotion of justice, we chose to exercise the writ of mandamus directing the CBDT to extend the date of filing of return of income to 30.11.2014, which is due date for filing of the TAR as per the Notification dated 20.08.2014. Such extension is granted with the qualification that the same may not result into non-charging of interest u/s 234A

Top