In Stock point Share Services Private Ltd v. ACIT, Justices Antony Dominic and Dama Seshadri Naidu of Kerala High Court held that in order claim deduction in respect to bad debts under section Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, the assessee has to fulfill two conditions, i.e, (i) the bad debt has been written off and (ii) that the bad debt has been taken into account in computing the income of the assessee in the previous years.
This Demand Draft was sent along with a notice, dated 22.1.2015. The third respondent has received the demand draft, but, unfortunately, misplaced the same. It is not known, as to how, the Revenue Department of the Corporation can be so careless in misplacing the demand draft, especially, when such amount was directed to be paid, pursuant to the Court order.
HC held that We do not see how it is possible for us to uphold the order of the Tribunal and when it purports to decide two Appeals of the Revenue by single paragraph conclusion. There is absolutely no discussion of the law and why the coordinate Bench decision rendered at Delhi is either distinguishable […]
Justices Akil Khureshi and Biren Vaishnav, in a recent ruling, held that section 50C of the Income Tax Act is applicable to a case where even a case where the document evidencing transfer of the capital asset has not been presented for registration
Whether retweeting would attract the liability under Section 499 IPC, is a question which requires to be determined in the totality of the circumstances and the same will have to be determined during trial and any interference at this stage by this court is likely to prejudice the findings of the Trial Court.
Section 263 confers sufficient powers upon the Commissioner to decide all issues of law, after recording its satisfaction that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.
Notice. Mr. Sanjeev Narula, the learned CGSC accepts notice for Respondent No.1 and Mr. Harpreet Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel accepts notice for Respondent No.2. Reply be filed on or before 17th October, 2017 and rejoinder, if any, be filed before the next of hearing.
It was held by Supreme Court in Karnani Properties Ltd vs. CIT [1972 AIR 2315, 1972 SCR (1) 457] that it is for the Tribunal to find facts and it is for the High Court and this Court to lay down the law applicable to the facts found. Neither the High Court nor this Court has jurisdiction, to go behind or to question the statements of facts made by the Tribunal.
Registration U/s. 12AA cannot be cancelled on the ground that trust has not yet commenced charitable or religious activity- CIT vs. Shreedhar Sewa Trust (Allahabad High Court)
The Petitioner seeks the quashing of a notice dated 20th March, 2015 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act (Act) by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (hereinafter Assessing Officer AO) and the order dated 1st February, 2016 passed by the AO disposing of the objections filed by the Petitioner to the said notice.
