A. Johnkuma Vs DCIT (ITAT Chennai) Facts- The assessee, a Proprietor of M/s. A.Johnkumar Cost Price Shop and M/s.Johnkumar Real Agency, is engaged in the business of running a Departmental Store and real estate business respectively. A search and seizure operation was conducted u/s.132 of the Act, on 17.09.2016. During the course of search, a […]
Bhaskar Banerjee Vs CBI (Calcutta High Court) Facts- Mr. Partha Das Chowdhury and Smt. Baisali Mukherjee, two directors of Emotions Infomedia Private Limited, applied for cash credit loan facility before Opposite Party no.2/ Bank. The petitioner an empanelled advocate of IDBI Bank/ Opposite Party no.2. prepared a favorable Search Report on the basis of two […]
Section 5(8)(d) includes only a finance or a capital lease, which is deemed, as such, under the Indian Accounting Standards. Section 5(8)(f) is a residuary and catch all provision. A lease, which is not a finance or a capital lease under Section 5(8)(d), may create a financial debt within the meaning of Section 5(8)(f), if, on its terms, the Court concludes that it is a transaction, under which, any amount is raised, having the commercial effect of the borrowing.
The Resolution Professional has not filed any application for the preferential transaction as required under Section 43(1) of the Code. Hence, apparently while going through the petition and hearing of Ld. Counsels for both the parties, it is very much clear that the Adjudicating Authority on its own has recorded it a related party which is beyond the provisions contend in the Code either explicitly or implicitly.
Capgemini India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Facts- Assessee filed its return of income on 7 October 2010 declaring income of ₹113,19,82,875/-. As the assessee has entered into several international transactions, reference was made to the Learned Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax, Transfer Pricing, 1(3), Mumbai for determination of arm’s length price of those transactions. […]
Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) Facts- The assessee has filed ROI on 9.10.2010 which was revised on 27.12.2010. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act accepting the returned income. Thereafter the case of the assessee was selected under scrutiny and statutory notices were duly issued and served upon the assessee. […]
In a case where there is a dispute/controversy on the mandate of the arbitrator being terminated on the ground mentioned in section 14(1)(a), such a dispute has to be raised before the “court”, defined under section 2(e) of the Act, 1996 and such a dispute cannot be decided on an application filed under section 11(6) of the Act, 1996.
Principal Commissioner Vs Reliance Industries Ltd. (Gujarat High Court) Generation of LPG, a by-product, cannot hinder the fact that entire quantity of input and input services used for manufacture of dutiable product Facts- The respondent is engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods like Motor Spirit, High Speed Diesel, LPG etc. It is the case […]
Held that imparting of ‘education’ in the field of architecture is covered within the provisions of section 2(15) of the Act and hence eligible for exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act
Section 68 of the Act creates a legal fiction which cast obligation on the assessee to explain to the satisfaction of the AO about nature and source of credit in case any amount is found credited in the books of the assessee maintained for any previous year.
