"20 August 2015" Archive

Tribunal has power to grant stay even beyond 365 days

Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Delhi High Court)

In the case of Pespsi Foods Pvt Ltd vs. Assistant Commissioner of income Tax, (Delhi High Court) has held that third proviso to section 254 (2A) through the insertion of the expression – ‘even if the delay in disposing of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee’– by virtue of the Finance Act, 2008...

Read More

Addition can’t be sustained in absence of cross examination of witness

Shri Ashokkumar Bhailal Vs Income Tax Officer (ITAT Ahmedabad)

In the case of Asst Shri Ashokkumar Bhailal v Income Tax Officer, ITAT Ahmedabad has held that addition made on basis of witness statements, without giving assessee an opportunity to cross examine the witness and without collaborating other independent evidence is not sustainable in law....

Read More

No concealment of income by the assessee if addition is merely based on deeming provision of sec 50C

Smt. Tarabai Kotumal Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

The Assessee sold immovable property for a sale consideration of Rs.13,70,000/-. The stamp duty valuation price was Rs.17,90,085/-. Accordingly AO invoking the provision of section 50C made addition on account of short-term capital gain....

Read More

When shares are not dividend bearing, no tax free income would arise. Sec. 14A would not applicable

ACIT Vs M/s Standard Vinimoy Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata)

In the balance sheet of the assessee, A.O. noted that there was a term loan of Rs.7,58,09,730/- from Axis Bank. Further the assessee has invested in fully paid equity shares of Pollen Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. amounting to Rs.6 crores....

Read More

No penalty u/s 271(1)(C), when the taxable income and tax remains the same after adjusting the addition due to concealment

The W.B.State Co-Opt. Marketing Federation Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata)

The AO initiated the penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income and for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee and sustained the penalty in respect of addition made due to provision for sundry debtors and provision f...

Read More

Only fees paid to Registrar is capital expenditure, other expense incurred in relation to issue covered u/s 35D

M/s. Rohit Ferro Tech Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata)

The present appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order passed by CIT(A) confirming the disallowance made u/s 35D in respect of expenditure incurred related to issue of shares and computation of book profit u/s 115JB....

Read More

Penalty u/s 271(1)(C) not leviable if substantial question of law exists

Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Mumbai (ITAT Mumbai)

In the instant case, the assessee has sold 71233 shares for Rs.3.33 crore under the buy-back scheme. This sale consideration comprises Rs.1.06 crore as interest. The assessee calculated the capital gain considering the total receipt of Rs.3.33 crore as value of sale consideration while the A.O. taxed Rs.1.06 crore as income from other sou...

Read More

Additions made of amount surrendered after adjusting expenditure was justified

Raj Hans Towers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Delhi High Court)

HC held that where assessee had not offered any satisfactory explanation regarding surrendered amount not being bona fide and it was also not borne out in any contentions raised before lower authorities, additions so made after adjusting expenditure were justified....

Read More

Constitutional Validity of Amended Section 29 of Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005

M/s Amrit Banaspati Company Limited. Vs The State of Punjab and others (Punjab & Haryana High Court)

Judgment in case of Amrit Banaspati Company Ltd.- The Hon’ble High Court upheld the Constitutional Validity of the amended Section 29(4) in entirety and dismissed the writ petitions. The basic grievances of the petitioners were that the Amendment of Section 29(4) was prospective and not retrospective....

Read More

No Service Tax on the Amount received as Wharfage Charges- SC

CCE Vs M/s Gujarat Maritime Board, Jafrabad (Supreme Court of India)

In the case of CCE v M/s Gujarat Maritime Board Hon’ble Supreme Court held that no service tax will be levied if the amount is collected under the wharfage charges which is prescribed under the Statute and doesn’t come under the 'Port Services....

Read More

Search Posts by Date

August 2021
M T W T F S S
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031