High Court held that Income Tax Refund cannot be withheld by Income Tax Department for error in Computer System. It held that the computer system cannot override the factual aspects and if Income Tax refund is payable than whether the computer systems accepts or not, is of no consequence.
Section 32(1)(ii) Rights acquired by the assessee under the said agreement not only give enduring benefit, protected the assessee’s business against competence, that too from a person who had closely worked with the assessee in the same business. The expression ‘or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature’ used in Explanation 3 to sub-section 32(1)(ii) is wide enough to include the present situation and make Assess eligible to claim depreciation on Non-compete rights.
Jubilant Foodworks Ltd. & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors (Delhi High Court) As far as the facts of the present case are concerned, one grievance is that although the Petitioners deal in as many as 393 products, and even according to the NAPA they are compliant in regard to the price of many […]
Sabu Johny Vs State of Kerala (Kerala High Court) (a) Section 3(6) of Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 is within the competence of State legislature and Section 3(6) is not in any manner repugnant to Chapter IV of Motor Vehicles’ Act, 1988 or ultra vires Act 1976. Section 3(6) therefore is valid and legal. (b) The registration […]
Pr. CIT Vs Mr. Peter Savio Pereira (Bombay High Court) The Tribunal notices that the assessee had received sale consideration partly in cash and partly in form of new flats to be constructed and to be allotted to the assessee. The Tribunal, therefore, correctly came to the conclusion that the assessee’s investment in such new […]
Shares purchased pursuant to the order of Company Court would not amount to capital gain and rather to be treated as a dividend.Whenever a company distributes its profits to its shareholders, the profit so disbursed, will amount to dividend and Dividend Distribution Tax at 15% was required to be paid by assessee u/s 115O.
Under normal circumstances, a person, who secured the facility of payment by installments and who committed default in complying with the same, may not be entitled to any indulgence. But, the facts of the case are little peculiar. It is seen from the representation made by the petitioner that the petitioner became a sick company from the year 2011 and their account was declared as Non-Performing Asset by the State Bank of India.
Pr. CIT Vs Shamrao Vithal Co-Op Bank (Bombay High Court) The division bench of the Bombay High Court has held that penalty cannot be levied under the Income Tax merely on the ground that a deduction claim was rejected by the department. The assessee is a Co-operative Bank. For the relevant A.Y under consideration, the […]
CIT Vs M/s. Reliance Life Insurance Co Ltd (Bombay High Court) Assessee had hired the services for various works such as storage of data, scanning of documents, processing charges, call centre operations etc. Looking to the nature of services outsourced, it was held that the same were basically clerical services of repetitive nature of work […]
Pr. CIT Vs Lemon Tree Hotels (P) Ltd. (Delhi High Court) The question of law urged with respect to expenditure claimed towards case of Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) has been subject matter of previous orders of this Court in respect of the present assessee. For A.Y. 2008-09 in ITA 107/2017 (Commissioner of Income Tax […]
