These judgements are uploaded by our esteemed readers. If you have a judgement on an important topic that you would like to share with others, please use this form to upload it
UTTARAKHAND PURV SAINIK KALYAN NIGAM LIMITED V. ITO (ITAT Dehradun)
ITAT - DEHRADUN: When time limit to file revised return is available, and even time limit to issue 143(2) is available, then re-assessment cannot be resorted to as it cannot be said that there is any escapement of income. The Ld. AO ought to issue notice u/s 143(2) and not u/s 148. Hence re-assessment is liable to be… Read More ...
Kerala State Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. (KSCARDB) Vs. The Assessing Officer (Supreme Court)
Supreme Court: Whether a co-operative society, is entitled to claim deduction of the whole of its profits and gains of business attributable to the business of banking or providing credit facilities to its members who are all co-operative societies under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961. HELD: What is central to the controversy is whether… Read More ...
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-10 Vs. M/s. Krishak Bharti Cooperative Ltd (Supreme Court)
Supreme Court: Whether the dividend income earned by the assessee is taxable, although exempted under Omani Tax Laws to entitle the assessee to the benefits of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (‘DTAA’) between India and Oman. HELD: The provisions of DTAA fully exempt the assessee from payment of tax on dividend in Oman which, in turn, would… Read More ...
Kankanala Ravindra Reddy vs. The Income Tax Officer (Telengana High Court)
Telengana High Court: When the AO decided to go in for re-assessment of the return submitted by the assessee and notice for the same under Section 148A of the Act was issued, it was incumbent upon the AO to have adhered to the amended provision of the Act and do the re-assessment in a faceless manner, rather than… Read More ...
Vrushali Sanjay Shinde v. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Mumbai (ITAT Mumbai)
ITAT - MUMBAI: The approval u/s 153D should be speaking and ought to necessarily reflect application of mind. In the absence of the same, the purpose of the approval from a superior authority as enshrined by the legislature gets vitiated. Read More ...
Tulsidas V. Patel Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 28(i) : Business income-Income from house property-Builder- Stock in trade-Leave and licence-Income from licencing of residential flats assessable as business income and not as income from house property. [S. 22, 23] Assessee, a builder, constructed building called Kanchenjunga and sold most of its flats. Some flats were unsold. In the interim disputes arose between… Read More ...
M/s. Cognizant Technology-Solutions India Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Chennai)
ITAT Chennai: The consideration paid by the assessee to its shareholders for purchase of its own shares was liable to tax as deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(d) of the Act, and alternatively, u/s.2(22)(a) of the Act, and consequently, the assessee company was liable for payment of Dividend Distribution Tax (in short “DDT") u/s.115-O of the Act. The consideration paid… Read More ...
Siemens Financial Services Pvt Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: In this case, the approval/sanction for order under Section 148A(d) of the Act has been granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-8. The entire controversy is, therefore, (a) whether the Principal Commissioner was the specified authority, who could have granted the approval / sanction ?, (b) if not, the effect thereof? The impugned notice… Read More ...
Bridge India Fund, New Delhi v. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel-Procedure for filing objections-Natural justice-Form No 35A signed by the Advocate-Authorised Representative is not entitle to verify and sig the Form No 35A-Dismissal of objection by DRP without giving an opportunity to rectify the defects is violation of principle of natural justice - The Tribunal directed the Assessee… Read More ...
SECUNDRABAD CLUB VS. C.I.T.-V (Supreme Court)
Supreme Court: (i) The Order of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Cawnpore Club Ltd., Kanpur (2004) 140 Taxman 378 (SC) cannot be treated as a precedent within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution of India as the said order does not declare any law and the appeals filed by the… Read More ...