All High Courts

Interest payable on Delay in Tax payment due to disclosure of STCG as LTCG

Tushin T. Mehta Vs CCIT (Madras High Court)

Tushin T. Mehta Vs CCIT (Madras High Court) The writ petitioner’s father late Mr. Tushaar Mehta voluntarily filed his return of income for the assessment year 1996-97 on 28.03.1997 admitting the total income of Rs.11,06,129/-. The assessee had claimed long term capital gains of Rs.3,26,813/- on sale of property made during that year...

Read More

Deemed grant of registration under Section 12AA

CIT Vs Gettwell Health and Education Samiti (Rajasthan High Court)

CIT Vs Gettwell Health and Education Samiti (Rajasthan High Court) Where the Commissioner does not pass any order even after six months from receipt of Tribunal’s order remitting the matter to him, the registration under section 12AA will be deemed to have been granted. This is subject to exercise of Commissioner’s power under Section...

Read More

Delay in depositing tax under IDS, 2016 for personal reasons cannot be condoned

Sadhana R. Jain Vs CeBDT & Anr. (Bombay High Court)

Sadhana R. Jain Vs CBDT & Anr (Bombay High Court) Reading of the  CBDT Circular dt. 28-3-2017, it would clearly emerge that while providing for a limited window, in cases where payments were made through banking channels but the deposit was made by the bank in the Government revenue few days after 30-11-2016 to condone […]...

Read More

Depreciation Vs. Actual cost: Government subsidy for setting up new industry

Pr. CIT Vs M/s. Welspun Steel Ltd. (Bombay High Court)

Pr. CIT Vs M/s. Welspun Steel Ltd. (Bombay High Court) If Government subsidy was intended as an incentive to encourage entrepreneurs to move to backward areas and establish industries. In such a case, specified percentage of the fixed capital cost, which was the basis for determining the subsidy, would be granted. The Court held that, [&h...

Read More

Delay in filing of TDS refund due to inadvertence of auditor is Bonafide mistake

G. V. Infosutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (Delhi High Court)

G. V. Infosutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (Delhi High Court) The rejection of the petitioner’s application under Section 119(2)(b) is only on the ground that according to the Chief Commissioner’s opinion the plea of omission by the auditor was not substantiated. This court has difficulty to understand what more plea or proof any assessee co...

Read More

Section 14A disallowance when Expenditure incurred against earning of exempted income disallowed voluntarily by Assessee

Pr. CIT Vs M/s. Lee & Murihead Pvt Ltd (Bombay High Court)

Pr. CIT Vs M/s. Lee & Murihead Pvt Ltd (Bombay High Court) Sub-section (2) of section 14A of Income Tax Act, 1961  provides that Assessing Officer would determine the amount of expenditure incurred in relation to income which not forms part of total income if he is not satisfied with the correctness of claim of […]...

Read More

Section 80IB deduction cannot be allowed if not claimed by assessee in return filed by him

EBR Enterprises & Anr. Vs Union of India and Anr. (Bombay High Court)

EBR Enterprises Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) Sub Section (5) of Section 80A of the Act mandates is that, if the assessee fails to make a claim in his return of income for any deduction under the provisions specified therein, the same would not be granted to the assessee. This condition or restriction […]...

Read More

DGAP cannot suo motu issue a notice requiring a company to submit information on all its products

Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited Vs Union of India (Delhi High Court)

Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited Vs Union of India (Delhi High Court) Grievance of the Petitioner is that Director General of Anti Profiteering (DGAP) has by the impugned notice dated 8th/9th April, 2019 sought information on all products of the Petitioner. In this context, he has referred to the recent amendment by which Sub-Rule ...

Read More

Bogus Share Capital- Onus is on assessee to prove genuineness of transaction

M/s. Royal Rich Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pr. CIT (Bombay High Court)

M/s. Royal Rich Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pr. CIT (Bombay High Court) The Assessing Officer recorded that there was no reason for high premium of Rs.30 per share being paid by the investors. The assessee company had carried out no business during the entire period, except for collection of share application money. The responding investors [...

Read More

Profit embedded in purchases covered by bogus bills only can be taxed

Pr. CIT Vs M/s. Paramshakti Distributors Pvt. Ltd. (Bombay High Court)

Tribunal applied the principle of taxing the profit embedded in such purchases covered by the bogus bills, instead of disallowing the entire expenditure....

Read More

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (4,238)
Company Law (4,949)
Custom Duty (7,351)
DGFT (3,974)
Excise Duty (4,229)
Fema / RBI (3,814)
Finance (3,990)
Income Tax (30,556)
SEBI (3,181)
Service Tax (3,468)