"06 May 2018" Archive

Income not taxable for mere physical receipt of income, but on receipt of income in reality

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs T. Jayachandran (Supreme Court of India)

The present appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 29.10.2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Tax Case (Appeal) No. 368 of 2005 wherein the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondent by absolving the additional tax liability imposed by the Assessing Officer,...

Read More

No Penalty on CHA for Unknowingly attempting to clear prohibited goods

Daroowala Bros & Co. Vs Commissioner of Customs (Gen.) (CESTAT Mumbai)

These appeals are directed against Order-in-original passed by the Commissioner of Customs, New Custom House, whereby Ld. Commissioner imposed penalty of Rs. 2 lacs under Section 114(i) of Customs Act, 1962 on CHA, M/s. Daroowala Brothers and Company and also imposed penalty of Rs. 1.5 lacs on Shri. Pervez Irani....

Read More

Section 41(1) not apples if loan waiver not amounts to cessation of trading liability

The Commissioner Vs Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. (Supreme Court of India)

These appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 29.01.2003 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in R.A.No.1561 (Bom)/1982 and R.A.No.5161/B/80 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court while giving answers to the Reference Applications filed by the Respondent as well as the Revenue, confirmed cer...

Read More

ICDs are Inland Ports & eligible for deduction U/s. 80-IA(4): SC

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/s Container Corporation of India Ltd. ( Supreme Court of India)

CIT Vs. Container Corporation of India Ltd (Supreme High Court) Whether the ICDs can be termed as Inland Ports so as to entitle deduction under Section 80-IA of the IT Act. The term port, in commercial terms, is a place where vessels are in a habit of loading and unloading goods. The term ‘Port’ as […]...

Read More

Amendment to s. 40(a)(ia) by Finance Act, 2010 are retrospective and curative in nature

Commissioner of Income Tax Kolkata X Vs M/s Calcutta Export Company (Supreme Court of India)

CIT Vs M/s Calcutta Export Company (Supreme Court of India) The purpose of the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2010 is to solve the anomalies that the insertion of section 40(a)(ia) was causing to the bona fide tax payer. The amendment, even if not given operation retrospectively, may not materially be of consequence to […]...

Read More

Adverse material collected or found during survey can be utilised in Block Assessment

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs S. Ajit Kumar (Supreme Court of India)

CIT Vs S. Ajit Kumar (Supreme Court of India) The power of survey has been provided under Section 133A of the IT Act. Therefore, any material or evidence found/collected in a Survey which has been simultaneously made at the premises of a connected person can be utilized while making the Block Assessment in respect of […]...

Read More

Expenses / Discount on ESOP exercised by the employees are allowable

Pr. CIT Vs New Delhi Television Ltd. (Delhi High Court)

Pr. CIT Vs New Delhi Television Ltd. (Delhi High Court) Legislature itself contemplates the discount on premium under ESOP as a benefit provided by the employer to its employees during the course of sendee. If the Legis­lature considers such discounted premium to the employees as a fringe benefit or ‘any consideration for employment’...

Read More

Period of exclusion regarding direction U/s. 142(2A) commences from the day on which AO gave a direction

CIT Vs Amar Nath Arora (Rajasthan High Court)

(i) Whether the findings of the Tribunal are perverse in holding that for the purpose of limitation under section 158BE, the period is to be counted from the date on which the direction under section 142(2A) is served on the assessee and not from the date of issuance of direction by the assessing officer under section 142(2A) ?...

Read More

To continue appeal in amalgamation file revised Form No. 36 in new entity name

EADS India (P) Ltd. Vs Dy. CIT (ITAT Bangalore)

EADS India (P) Ltd. Vs Dy. CIT (ITAT Bangalore) In case of amalgamation, assessee was required to file the revised Form No. 36 in accordance with rules, to continue its appeal in the name of new entity. In the absence of any amended Form 36/memo of parties, the present appeals were not maintainable. It is […]...

Read More

If assessee exercises safe harbour option and AO do not pass order declaring it invalid than option will be deemed as valid

Mehsana District Co-OPerative Vs Deputy Commissioner of income tax (Gujarat High Court)

Mehsana District Co-operative Vs. DCIT (Gujarat High Court) Sub­rule (7) of rule 10THD thus lays down the time limit for the Assessing Officer to pass an order under sub­rule(4) and for the concerned competent authority to pass an appropriate order under sub­rule(6). We may recall under sub­rule(4), the Assessing Officer may declare t...

Read More
Page 1 of 3123