In a recent ruling, the division bench of the Bombay High Court, while allowing tax relief to Mr. Nusli Wadia, held that the sale of his life interest in the income from the Trust property would not attract Capital gains Tax if the previous transaction through which he got the title over the property was held as not a transfer or Gift under the Income Tax Act.
HC held that Tribunal – the higher appellate authority has neither considered and weighed, in entirety, the evidence relied by the lower appellate authority nor it has dealt with the reasoning and findings of the lower appellate authority while passing the order of reversal.
These two appeals are against impugned orders, both dated 01/07/2010, passed by Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi. The appellant is an institution created by an Act of Parliament – The Employee’s Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952 (EPMF & MP Act).
Issue of validity of reassessment proceedings is a jurisdictional issue. It goes to the root of the matter. The Tribunal ought to have examined the ground no.3 raised in the assessee’s appeal on its merit without being prejudiced by the facts that the reassessment order has been passed on the exparte basis in which the proceedings the assessee has not objected to the initiation of the reassessment.
Assessing Officer to compute the disallowance as per Rule 8D by taking into consideration only those shares, which have yielded dividend income in the year under consideration.
In this case SC held that After hearing learned counsel, it is not possible to comprehend the contents of the impugned order passed by the High Court. The order passed by the High Court is, therefore, set aside and the matter is remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits.
The division bench of the Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), in Lemes E. D’ Souza v. ITO, held that benefit of Investing in NHAI/ REC Bonds under section 54EC of the Income Tax cannot be denied to the assessee merely for the reason that the investment was made beyond 6 months from the date of transfer.
Provisions of Section 50 (2) of the Act would apply to a case where the assessee transfers one or more block of assets, which he was using in running of his business. Such is not the case here because in this case, the assessee sold the entire business as a running concern.
HC held that denial of benefit of waiver of crop loans to the farmers who had cultivated lands exceeding 5 acres is a clear discrimination violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
1. This appeal under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961(the Act) assails the order dated 31st October, 2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). The impugned order relates to Assessment Year 2006-07 2. This appeal was admitted on 28th January, 2015 on the following substantial questions of law:-
