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 […]...

Suresh Kumar Singhal Vs Union of India (Rajasthan High Court) Provision incorporated in the Constitution Act, 2016 as aforesaid, in no manner, restrict the operation of the provisions of section 174(2) incorporated in CGST Act beyond the period of one year, which provides that repeal of the Acts specified in sub-section (1) of section 174...

One fails to understand why the concerned officer has at all attended the proceedings, if he had not bothered to come with the files. It is evident that the concerned officer must be availing of leave as well as other benefits for the purpose of coming from Bhavnagar to Ahmedabad. However, in absence of the files, the entire purpose of co...

Madan Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh (Chhattisgarh High Court) Purport of the special law under the Negotiable Instruments Act is to ensure that the promise to pay is abided by the person so promising. The provision under Section 139 of the NI Act is that it shall be presumed that the holder of a cheque […]...

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....

Whenever an amount deducted as tax at source becomes incapable of being being adjusted or counted towards tax payable, it acquired the character of an  income. In such an event, it partake the character of any other income and is liable to be dealt with accordingly....

Where the value of stock shown to bank for purpose of availing of higher credit facility was based on market rate and not at cost price but there was no difference in quantitative details, no addition under section 69B could be made. ...

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 […]...

M/s. West Asia Exports & Imports Vs. ACIT (Madras High Court) We know that Sec 41(1) of Income Tax Act 1961, where there is cessation of any trading liability then the benefit accruing on account of cessation of such liability will be deemed to profits and gains of business or profession whether or not such […]...

Reassessment after period of four years on the ground that assessee had claimed excess deduction under Section 80IB(10) was not valid where assessee had made true and full disclosure and had consciously made only a proportionate claim under Section 80IB(10), which was rightly allowed by AO at the time of original assessment proceedings un...