M/s. Gillette India Limited Vs Delhi Development Authority (Delhi High Court) It is well settled that shares of a company are a separate asset wholly distinct from the assets held by the company. In the present case, there was dilution of the share capital of TGC as well as transfer of shares held by the […]
Elsevier Information Systems GmbH Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Whether the subscription fee can be treated as fees for technical services. As discussed earlier, it is evident that the assessee has collated data from various journals and articles and put them in a structured manner in the database to make it more user friendly and beneficial […]
ITO vs. Firoz Abdul Gafar Nadiadwala (ACMM) t is well established that accused committed alleged offence. Before authority, he also remain absent. Not any application for compounding the offence is filed. It appears that there is culpable mental state of the accused for non depositing of TDS amount within time therefore, he is liable for […]
Shiv Raj Sharma Shiksha Samiti Bilaspur Vs CIT (ITAT Lucknow) It is well settled position of law that at the time of granting approval under Section 80G of the Act, what is to be examined is the object of the trust and so far as the aspect of income is concerned, the same can be […]
Offence under section 276CC stood committed upon the non-filing of return under section 142(1) within the prescribed time limit. Hence, no case was made out for discharge of assessee.
Pr. CIT Vs Prakash Mangilal Jain (Bombay High Court) Following FIFO or LIFO method cannot be the basis for levying penalty as per the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In order to justify the levy of penalty, two factors must co-exist, (i) there must be some material or circumstances leading to the reasonable […]
In the instant case, has received cash loan from her parents and brother to meet the stamp duty cost for purchase of a house property for her own living, therefore, I am of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act and the provisions of section 273B will come to the rescue of the assessee as a reasonable cause.
Kailash Bahiru Jadhav Vs Commissioner of Customs (Export) (CESTAT Mumbai) Customs House Agents Licensing Regulation, 2004 which is a comprehensive self-contained scheme for licensing, operations, monitoring and regulation, is a standalone provision. Indeed it is a special provision in the Customs Act, 1962 by which, a whole range of activities in connection with which proceedings […]
Yashodhara Shroff Vs. Union of India (Karnataka High Court) (a) It is held that Section 164(2)(a) of the Act is not ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. The said provision is not manifestly arbitrary and also does not fall within the scope of the doctrine of proportionality. Neither does the said provision violate Article […]
Pr. CIT Vs Adamine Construction (P) Ltd. (Delhi High Court) The material on record in the form of the orders of the lower appellate authorities disclosed that both the assessee and later the share applicants (upon receiving notice under Section 131 of the Act) had produced documentary proof. These included the assessments and income-tax returns […]
