RKS Agencies Vs State Tax Officer (Madras High Court) The petitioner purchased goods called cement from Andhra Pradesh, whereas, the petitioner is having the Branch office at Coimbatore which is the destination where the purchased goods has to reach. When the goods were transported, the vehicle was intercepted by the respondent Revenue Squad and they […]
Gulmuhar Silk Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (Delhi High Court) Though it is the petitioner’s case that the impugned order is erroneous on facts, yet this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner would have ample opportunity during the course of proceedings before different statutory forums to show that the finding of fact arrived at […]
CIT (Exemptions) Vs Hamdrd National Foundation (India) (Delhi High Court) 1. Present batch of appeals has been filed raising a common question of law, namely, as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘Tribunal’) was correct in allowing the appeal of the assessee ignoring the […]
Vodafone Luxembourg 5 S A R L Vs Income Tax Department (Delhi High Court) Learned counsel for Revenue emphasises that the petitioner’s case has been selected for reassessment only on the ground that the respondents has doubted as to whether interest was received by the petitioner-assessee on rupee denominated bonds issued by an Indian company […]
Voltas Limited Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court) Facts- Petitioner is a company engaged in the business of air conditioning and refrigeration etc. During the A.Y. 2015-16, petitioner incurred expenses of Rs.3,30,82,713 towards CSR as per section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013. Petitioner had also claimed deduction in return of income u/s 35AC and 80G […]
The issue of limitation for the first time is raised before the Appellate Court and the Court exercising the discretion to condone the delay did not arise at all before the Trial Court and hence I am of the opinion that the Appellate Court has not committed any error in setting aside the judgment and directing the complainant to file necessary application to condone the delay and the Trial Court by giving an opportunity to the petitioners to consider the said application.
SRC Aviation Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court) Facts- The appellant is a private limited company. Sh. Arvind Chadha and Sh. Anoop Chadha are two share-holders and directors holding 50% equity shares each since inception of the company. In the Assessment year 2011-2012, the company has paid bonus of Rs.1 crore each to both […]
Supreme Court has held that the expression ‘reason to believe’ means that there is some prima facie material on the basis of which the Department can reopen the case. The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at the stage of issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act.
PCIT Vs Consortium Nussli Comfort Net (Delhi High Court) This Court is in agreement with the Tribunal that Section 292BB does not give the power to condone the failure or delay in issuing the statutory notice required to be issued under Section 143(2) of the Act. Section 292BB deals with failure of service of notice […]
Dr K R Shroff Foundation Vs Additional CIT/ JCIT/ DCIT/ ACIT / ITO (Gujarat High Court) It is a matter of record that the show cause notice dated 21.04.2021 was responded to on 26.04.2021. The hearing through video conference was requested for between 4:00 pm. to 6:00 pm. on any working day, however, the show […]
