Deputy Director of Income Tax Vs Sigapi Muthiah (Madras High Court) Heard Mr.R.Sankara Narayanan, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant, and Mr.A.L.Somiyaji, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.R.Sivaraman, learned counsel for the 1st respondent. 2. These Writ Appeals have been preferred by the Revenue, challenging the correctness […]
The assessee is an individual, the respondent framed an assessment under the Act for the assessment year 1991-92 on the ground that the taxable gift exceeding Rs.12 lakhs has escaped assessment and therefore, notice under Section 16 of the Act was issued on 15.07.1992.
Learned counsel submits that the petitioner moved an application in terms of Section 144B 7(vii) seeking an opportunity of personal hearing which has been denied. Learned counsel submits that fair opportunity has not been provided to put up their submissions and defence and the order goes beyond the contents of the show cause notice.
Jagadish Kumar Basantani Vs ITO Bhopal and Others (Madhya Pradesh High Court) Regard being had to the similitude of the questions involved, on the joint request of the parties, the matter is being heard on the question of admission and interim relief. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has challenged the Constitutionality […]
Mahanagar Nagrik Sahakari Bank Maryadit Vs Union of India And Others (Madhya Pradesh) Reserve Bank of India Circular Dated 25th June 2021; related to RBI control over Urban Co-Operative Banks; Stayed by Hon’ble MP High Court Jabalpur. While hearing a writ petition challenging constitutionality of Banking Regulation (Amendment) Act, 2020, and consequential Circular dated 25 […]
Petitioner’s imported vessels namely; ‘Jag Arnav’, ‘Jag Ratan’ and ‘Jag Rani’ were exempted from the payment of custom duty when they were first called in Indian Port. The Petitioner’s contention relied on the fact that the Exemption Notification 2012 which levied custom duty on imported vessels was passed after the import of their vessel and cannot have a retrospective application. Hence exempted the Petitioner from the payment of custom duty
CIT to at least record a prima facie finding that certain amount claimed by assessee as deduction in its computation of income de facto related to earning of dividend income. Thus, it was held that in the absence of any such prima facie finding, the reassessment was erroneous and no addition could be made under section 14A.
The onus to prove the identity, the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction was solely on assessee under section 68 and merely because statutory approvals had been obtained by assessee, viz., FIPB and RBI did not sanctify the transaction especially when according to AO they were all unexplained investment.
The contention of the Revenue is that Section 11 BB of the Central Excise Act would not be applicable in the present case as it is a delayed refund of certain exemptions and will not be covered by Section 11 BB of the Act
DCIT Vs Salem Sree Ramavilas Chit Company Private Limited (Madras High Court) The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Appellant) has filed the current appeal against Order W.P.No.1732 of 2020. dated February 04, 2020 on the ground that the Appellant was not provided with a hearing opportunity and that the Hon’ble High Court of Madras made […]
