- Sunday, November 28, 2010, 9:39
- Income Tax
- 20 views
IT IS HEREBY notified for the information of the Advocates and the parties appearing in-person that in partial modification of the extant assignment of judicial work, from Monday, 22nd November 2010: (I) All Writ Petitions, Appellate Side and Origi
Full Article
- Thursday, January 28, 2010, 7:10
- Income Tax Case Laws
- 23 views
Delhi High Court in the case of Messe Dusseldorf India Pvt. Ltd. (Taxpayer) [2010-TIOL- 74-HC-DEL-IT] dismissing a writ petition, held that in cases where a taxpayer has not been provided an opportunity of being heard by the Transfer Pricing Officer, the taxpayer is entitled to raise all objections and furnish necessary evidence to the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP has to pass speaking order after taking into consideration the objections filed and evidences fur..
Full Article
- Sunday, January 24, 2010, 10:53
- Income Tax Case Laws
- 31 views
it will be in the interest of justice to set aside the final order passed by the Settlement Commission and to remand the matter back to the Settlement Commission for hearing parties afresh and to pass orders as per law. Facts and circumstances noted in respect of writ petition no.2191 of 1999 are also relevant for the remaining writ petitions and, therefore, it will be necessary that the final orders passed in all these proceedings should be set aside.
Full Article
- Friday, December 11, 2009, 3:36
- Income Tax
- 12 views
Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) empowers the Assessing Officer (“AO”) to levy penalty if he is satisfied that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. A new section 271(1B) was introduced by the Finance Act, 2008 with retrospective effect from 1 April 1989, providing that in a case where an addition/disallowance has been made in computing taxable income/loss, a direction given by..
Full Article
- Wednesday, December 2, 2009, 16:46
- Income Tax Case Laws
- 23 views
The assessee filed a revision petition u/s 264 in which it claimed that the subsidy received by it from the government was a capital receipt and not chargeable to tax in view of P.J. Chemicals Ltd 210 ITR 830 (SC). The Petition was allowed by the CIT. Subsequently, the Supreme Court held in Sahney Steel and Press Works 228 ITR 253 that the subsidy received by that assessee was a revenue receipt. Pursuant to this judgement, the CIT passed a rectification order u/s 154 by ..
Full Article
- Thursday, November 5, 2009, 2:39
- Income Tax Case Laws
- 7 views
The fixing of cut-off date under section 245D(4A)(1), the abatement under section 245HA(1)(iv) , making available the confidential information under section 245HA(3), as inserted by the Finance Act, 2007, would be clearly ultra vires the Constitution and are liable to be struck down as null and void ab initio; it is, however, open to the High Court instead of striking down the impugned provision in its entirety to read down such provision in such a manner so as to set at..
Full Article
- Tuesday, October 13, 2009, 10:57
- Income Tax Case Laws
- 25 views
The assessee claimed deduction u/s 80-IB (10) which was rejected by the AO but allowed by the CIT (A). On appeal by the department, the Tribunal ruled against the assessee and held that it was not eligible for deduction. The assessee filed a MA u/s 254 (2) pointing out that it had cited a judgement of the Kolkota Bench of the Tribunal (which had been considered by the CIT (A)) and a judgement of the Kolkota High Court which had not been considered by the Tribunal when de..
Full Article
- Tuesday, October 6, 2009, 5:15
- Income Tax Case Laws
- 2 views
In The Case of :- EMA India vs. ACIT , Decided by :- Allahabad High Court In respect of AY 2000-01, the assessee filed a ROI. In the accompanying balance sheet it was disclosed that prior period expenditure of Rs. 5,41,850 was debited to the P&L A/c and that interest of Rs. 8,34,720 receivable from [...]
Full Article