"16 May 2012" Archive

If Section 263 order not survive then assessment order in pursuance to such order cannot survive too

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Eastern India Powertech Ltd. (ITAT Delhi)

Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court modified the order of the ITAT and, instead of order under Section 263 having been quashed by the ITAT, set aside the matter back to the file of the CIT for passing the fresh order under Section 263. However, the fact remains that at present the order under Section 263 passed by the CIT dated 31.12.2009...

Read More

Rent to be charged as ‘Income from other sources’ if not chargeable to income tax as profit and gains of business or profession

M/s. Dolphin Adventure Sports Ltd. Vs. The Income Tax Officer (ITAT Mumbai)

Major source of income credited by the assessee company in the profit and loss account is Other Income of Rs. 3,00,000/- and Rent of Rs. 1,49,000/-. The assessee had not carried out any business activity in the current year nor the assessee has produced any evidences in support of its argument that it has actively pursuing its business ac...

Read More

Depreciation allowed on capital expenditure on account of payment of customs duty

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Orient Ceramics & Industries Ltd. (ITAT Delhi)

Directions issued by the Customs Department, the payment of customs duty has been made though the same has been shown as advance or a note has been appended in the accounts for contingent liability. Therefore, in our view the Assessee has made the payment of customs duty only when the liability has accrued on it. Since the customs duty ha...

Read More

Section 205A & 205C of Companies Act 1956 are not violative of Article 14 of Constitution

Nivedita Sharma Vs Ministry of Corporate Affairs & Ors. (Delhi High Court)

Reading of the judgment dated 07.7.2011 rendered in the earlier writ petition, it becomes clear that the petitioner had challenged the vires of Section 205A and 205C on the ground that these provisions were arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It was also argued that these provisions could not be given retrospective ...

Read More

Stay against Income Tax Demand if Assessee not produced his Present financial position?

Mr. Nalin P. Shah Vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax (ITAT Mumbai)

These two stay applications are connected and issues are similar. These stay applications are preferred by assessees on the issue whether the long term capital gains and short term capital gains offered should be treated as business income or profession....

Read More

Confession of co-accused u/s. 108 Customs Act not admissible if he is not jointly tried with Petitioner

Krishan Vs R.K Virmani, Air Customs Office (Delhi High Court)

A confession of the co-accused is admissible only under Section 30 of the Evidence Act. One of the essential requirements of the said provision is that the two accused should be tried jointly. Since the confession of the co-accused is not admissible as he is not being jointly tried with the Petitioner and besides this piece of evidence th...

Read More

Appeal dismissed for Non-Prosecution can be recalled on pray for recall

Ms. Sangeeta Singh Vs. Income tax Officer (ITAT Delhi)

There was no communication or information as to why the revenue chose to remain absent on that date. The Tribunal on the basis of inherent powers, treated the appeal filed by the revenue as un-admitted in view of the provisions of Rule 19 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. The assessee, if so desired, shall be free to move this Trib...

Read More

In the absence of cooperation from Assessee CIT (A) can adjudicate appeal on merits

Fine Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)

We have carefully considered the rival submissions in the light of the material placed before us. We have also gone through the order passed by the learned CIT (A). It is observed that learned CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee in limine without considering the merits of the issues raised in the appeal filed by the ass...

Read More

Assessee entitled to depreciation @ 60% on the computer & computer peripherals

DCIT Vs. Easy Bills Ltd. (ITAT Delhi)

The return of income in the present case was filed at a loss of Rs.19,03,733/-. The only addition made to that loss is regarding depreciation claimed on computers which is granted by the Assessing Officer @15% as against the claim of the assessee of 60% and excess depreciation claimed by the assessee has been computed at Rs.66,15,933/-. L...

Read More

NSE byelaws, rules and regulations would prevail over the Limitation Act, 1963

Debjyoti Gupta Vs Indiabulls Securities Ltd & Anr (Delhi High Court)

NSE byelaws, rules and regulations would have statutory force. These statutory byelaws were brought into effect with the approval of the Securities Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’) under Section 9 of the Securities Contract (Regulation) Act, 1956. The said bye-laws would prevail over the Limitation Act, 1963....

Read More
Page 1 of 3123