M/s. Jaap Auto Distributors Vs Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Madras High Court) A Writ Court cannot make a fact finding exercise to ascertain, which would be an appropriate entry under which the goods are to be classified. In fact, under the normal course in respect of classification disputes, the High Court cannot entertain an appeal […]
Anything which can properly be described as income is taxable under the Act unless expressly exempted. Following the above principle, Court held that interest earned by Assessee is clearly its income and unless it can be shown that any provision like Section 10 has exempted it from tax, it will be taxable.
In the present case, the petitioner has not made any representation under Section 13 (13-A) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 before the bank and has approached this Court by-passing statutory mechanism which has been disapproved by the Supreme Court in the case of Devi Ispat Limited and another Vs. State Bank of India and other (2014) 5 SCC 762.
Court is satisfied that no error was committed by the ITAT in holding that the value declared in the tax return filed by the Assessees under WTA cannot be taken to be the cost of acquisition in the hands of the Assessees.
The challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated 21-12-2016 passed by the Principal Commissioner (PCIT) rejecting the Petitioners application under section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) on the ground of limitation.
Those who are not PAN holders, while applying for PAN, they are required to give Aadhaar number. This is the stipulation of sub-section (1) of Section 139AA, which we have already upheld.
This Court while deciding a Reference needs to keep in mind the limitations of its role. It does not sit in appeal over the decision making process of the Disciplinary Committee and the recommendations so made by the Council of the Institute. Hence in examining the Report and the recommendation of the Council it cannot re-appreciate the evidence on record or assess the findings of the Committee as an Appellate Authority.
It is held that as the provision of Section 69C of the Act is not mandatory in nature, the Assessing Authority has full discretion either to add or not to add the unexplained expenditure in the income of the assessee based upon sound judicial principles
Section 145 (2), as amended, has to be read down to restrict power of the Central Government to notify ICDS that do not seek to override binding judicial precedents or provisions of the Act. The power to enact a validation law is an essential legislative power that can be exercised, in the context of the Act, only by the Parliament and not by the executive. If Section 145 (2) of the Act as amended is not so read down it would be ultra vires the Act and Article 141 read with Article 144 and 265 of the Constitution.
Detailed investigations carried out by the assessing officer establish the position that the contributors to share capital were persons of insignificant means and their credit worthiness to have made the contributions has not been established.
