While Bombay HC has refused to grant bail application pending payment of Service tax for service tax evasion for the period starting before 10.05.2013 in the case of Kandra Rameshbabu Naidu but on the other hand Kolkutta High Court in the case of Sudip Das granted to bail to accused who had been charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 89(1)(d) of the Finance Act, 1994.
If the assessee is able to keep the six months’ limit from the date of transfer of capital asset, but, still able to place investment of Rs. 50 lakhs each in two different financial years, we cannot say that the restrictive proviso will limit the claim to Rs. 50 lakhs only.
Government only intended to restrict the investment in a particular financial year and accordingly has fixed the limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- as permissible limit in a particular financial year. The Government did not intend to restrict the maximum amount of exemption permissible under Section 54EC.
The Court noted conflicting precedents on whether a High Court can entertain review after dismissal of an SLP. It referred the issue to a larger bench to clarify the doctrine of merger under Article 136.
Vide clause 8 Notification No. 3/2013, dated 15-1-2013 CBDT has specified that Assessee can file an appeal against the actions of the CPC. The appeal can be filed with the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) having jurisdiction over the Assessing Officer who has jurisdiction over the deductor.
Vide clause 7 of the Notification No. 3/2013, dated 15-1-201 CBDT has specified that an adjustment of refunds against outstanding tax demand can be done u/s 245 of the Act only after issuing prior intimation to the taxpayer.
Deduction under section 80CCF of the Income Tax Act is available on investing amount in to ‘long term infrastructure bonds’. The present article explains the provisions of section 80CCF. Person eligible for deduction under section 80CCF Deduction under section 80CCF is available to the following categories of persons – An individual; and A Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). […]
Shri M.V.Subramanyeswara Reddy (HUF) Vs DCIT ITAT Hyderabad Mere non residential use subsequently would not render the property ineligible for benefit u/s.54F, if it is otherwise a residential property, as held by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mahavir Prasad Gupta Vs JCIT (5 SOT 353).
Shanti Bhushan vs. CIT (Delhi High Court) -Delhi High Court has disallowed the income tax deduction for expenses incurred on heart surgery by eminent lawyer Mr. Shanti Bhushan. It was argued by Mr. Bhushan that he suffered a heart attack due to professional work and the expenditure incurred by him on a heart operation must be deductible under Section 31 of the Income Tax (I-T) Act.
P&H High Court in a ruling in the case of Vinod Kumar Jain Vs. CIT held that Assessee gets title to the properly on the issuance cf an allotment letter and the payment cf instalments is only a consequential action upon which the delivery of possession flows and in calculation of holding period the period from the date of allotment and upto the date of possession will also be counted.
