Delhi High Court directed Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) to re-consider the high-pitched assessment as gross profit applied is 12.5% as against historical gross profit of 1.06%. Coercive measures against the petitioner instructed to be kept on hold.
ITAT Mumbai held that rental income from giving out commercial properties for compensation as per Memorandum of Association (MOA) is to be treated as ‘business income’ and not as ‘income from house property’.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that only profit and gains derived from the incidental business of charitable-trust would qualify as income for computing statutorily allowed accumulation of 15% in terms of section 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Chennai held that deduction under section 54 of the Income Tax Act restricted to only for one floor (3rd floor) as assessee failed to establish that two floors (3rd and 4th floor) is one residential house.
Appeals filed half a decade ago (and even a decade ago in some cases), are yet to decide the fate of the taxpayer who is anxiously anticipating a favourable outcome.
Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act provides that every individual who has been allotted a permanent account number (PAN) as on the 1st day of July, 2017, and who is eligible to obtain an Aadhaar number, shall intimate his Aadhaar number in the prescribed form and manner.
Badal Bhupatrai Shah Vs. State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) The Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat allows anticipatory bail application, accepting the contention that: (i) directors of the company cannot be prosecuted in absence of a statutory provision; (ii) company has been wound up under section 433 and 434 of the companies act and hence, […]
KEC International Ltd. Vs State of Kerala (Kerala High Court) The Hon’ble High Court held that once the money has been received by the State Government, credit has to be given to the petitioner. It is for the KSEB to clarify how the payment was made to the State Government and the petitioner cannot be […]
HP Adhesives Limited Vs Union of India (Bombay high court) The Petitioner applied under the SVLDRS Scheme. The application was rejected on the ground that redemption fine is not covered under section 125 of the SVLDR Scheme. Accordingly, the petition was filed against such rejection. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay set aside such rejection […]
HC of Singapore rendered an interesting decision in case of Herbalife International Singapore Pte Ltd on the issue of valuation of goods supplied by Herbalife International to its members under direct selling business model.
