judgement

In Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Vs. Hongo India (P) Ltd., reported in 2009 (236) ELT 417 (SC), the Supreme Court approved this decision in M.M. Thomas (supra) and said that the High Court possesses all powers in order to correct the errors apparent on the face of record. In D.N. Singh Vs. CIT, reported in (2010) 325 ITR 349, the full bench of Patna High Court held High Court has power to review its order under Section 260A of Income Tax Act. It referred .. Full Article

The Delhi High Court in the Home Solution Retail India case had held that renting of immovable property is not a taxable service. The Government as usual filed an appeal in the Supreme Court and the whole Department is under the impression that by mere filing an appeal in the Supreme Court, the High Court order has become inoperative. So demands, threats, Show Cause Notices are playing wild games in the field. Even the TRU, by a letter dated 15.07.2009 directed the Depar.. Full Article

The Supreme Court has ruled in the case of Tameshwar Vaishanav vs Ramvishal Gupta that if the payee or the holder of the cheque does not file a complaint of dishonour within the prescribed time, he cannot issue a second notice and then file a complaint again. Notice with respect to a cheque can be issued only once. The deadline or limitation starts from the date of the first notice. Full Article

The Supreme Court has upheld a Bombay High Court ruling saying that the Government cannot levy service tax on services provided outside the country. The order pertains to service tax for the period from March 1, 2002 to April 17, 2006. Full Article

The assessee co-op housing society gave permission to a developer to construct 2 floors and 8 flats on the building belonging to the society by using the TDR / FSI available to the developer. In consideration, the developer paid Rs. 26 lakhs to the assessee and Rs. 66 lakhs to its members aggregating Rs. 92 lakhs. The AO took the view that the assessee had relinquished its right “to load TDR and construct additional floors” and as there was no cost of acquisition, t.. Full Article

The assessee earned long-term capital gains of Rs. 40.57 L which was not chargeable to tax u/s 54EC. As the said gains were credited to the P&L A/c, the assessee excluded the gains whilst computing “book profits” u/s 115JB in view of the Special Bench judgement in Sutlej Cotton Mills 45 ITD 22 (Cal) (SB) where it had been held that non-taxable capital receipts had to be excluded from book profits. The AO and the CIT (A) rejected the claim. On appeal by the assessee H.. Full Article

After the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. delivered on 23-5-2007 and reported at (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC), a large number of actions are being initiated u/s. 147/148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short) and often high-pitched Income tax assessments are being made at several places. Full Article

The assessee’s income was computed u/s 115JB as it had no income under the normal provisions of the Act. The assessee claimed that despite the absence of normal profits, it was eligible for deduction u/s 80HHC in computing the book profits under Expl. (iv) of s. 115JB in accordance with the judgement of the Special Bench in Syncome Formulations 106 ITD 193 (Mum) (SB) and that the judgement of the Bombay High Court in Ajanta Pharma 223 CTR 441 (Bom) (which held that Syn.. Full Article