PCIT Vs LKG Builders P. Ltd. (Delhi High Court) Court is of the opinion that the questions of law raised in present appeals have been settled by earlier Division Bench in CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla (supra) and assessment of the respondents had attained finality prior to the date of search and no incriminating documents or […]
ACIT Vs Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) Revenue is aggrieved with the observation of the CIT(A) that the provisions of Sec. 50C of the Act would not stand triggered in respect of the transaction of transfer of reversionary rights of the property in question by the assessee to M/s Yash & Yashika Mercantile (P) […]
Y. Manjula Reddy Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) The next impediment in the minds of the tax authorities was that the plot was purchased jointly in the name of the assessee and her husband and hence it should be held that both held 50% right each and hence the assessee could have purchased only her husband’s […]
Kalpesh Synthetics Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Grievance of the assessee, as requiring our adjudication in this appeal, is that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the adjustment, made by the Centralized Processing Centre Bengaluru while processing income tax returns under section 143(1) based on certain inputs from the tax audit reports […]
A.O. had rightly endorsed the corroborated claim of the assessee in this regard, the PCIT, in our view, has attempted to substitute his wisdom by views of the A.O. without any definite basis. If the view of the PCIT towards the banakhat allegedly hollow or unenforceable is accepted, no income can be recognised at all.
The impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 was also issued at Cuttack. The return of income for the A. Y. 2015-16 was also filed at Cuttack. The final assessment order dated 29th December 2017 for the A. Y. 2015-16 was also passed at Cuttack. We are of the view that we should not entertain this writ application and relegate the writ applicant to file an appropriate writ application before the High Court of Orrissa at Cuttack.
Jaganadhan Vs State of Kerala (Kerala High Court) Facts- The Government of Kerala amended the Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 by introducing Section 27A, whereby applications for user of unnotified land for other purposes was permitted. A fee was prescribed for granting permission for such user. On 25.7.2021, the Government issued a […]
The present article attempts to find answer to the question whether NCLT or DRT is the appropriate adjudicating authority as far as application for insolvency resolution of the personal guarantors to the corporate debtors is concerned.
