Follow Us:

All High Courts

Statement made during Survey supported with Corroborative Evidence is admissible as Evidence

January 6, 2019 1926 Views 0 comment Print

Thiru S.Shyam Kumar Vs  ACIT (High Court Madras) The entire issue revolves around the factual matrix as to whether the slips, which contain certain details, were pertaining to payments made by the assessee, not brought into the books of accounts.  Before the assessing Officer, the assessee has given more than one statement accepting the on-money payment. […]

Section 201(3) amended WEF 01-10-2014 cannot be applied retrospectively

January 6, 2019 5748 Views 0 comment Print

Eris Life Sciences (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT (High Court Gujarat) As per sub-section (3) of section 201 which stood prior to 1.10.2014, the initiation of action for failing to deduct tax at source is barred by limitation. The amended sub-section(3) of section 201 with effect from 1.10.2014 enlarges the period of limitation to seven years which, as held by […]

S. 80HHB Sub-contractor for refinery shut down outside India is a Foreign Project

January 4, 2019 828 Views 0 comment Print

M/s. SPIC Jel Engineering Vs ACIT (Madras High Court) CIT (A) had gone through the agreement and the drawings, which were enclosed as annexures and found that the nature of work carried on by the assessee, as a sub-contractor, for the refinery shut down clearly comes within the scope of foreign project, more specifically, assembly […]

Reassessment initiated for second time is valid if based on new Tangible Materials

January 4, 2019 3315 Views 0 comment Print

A. Sridevi Vs ITO (Madras High Court) Admittedly, the original return filed by the assessee did not reflect the subject matter income, namely, the advance made by the assessee to the said Nagarajan of a sum of Rs.2.75 crores. When the earlier reopening proceedings was initiated with issuance of notice under section 148, the assessee […]

Loan received from company not deemed dividend U/s. 2(22)(e) if assessee was not a member/shareholder of concerned company

January 3, 2019 4134 Views 0 comment Print

Where assessee was not a member/shareholder of the concerned company, therefore, loan/advance received from such company was not deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e).

ITAT should not remand an issue to TPO which can be considered at its end

January 3, 2019 2793 Views 0 comment Print

Sony Pictures Networks India appeal: By not dealing with an issue which is otherwise ripe for consideration and instead remanding to the TPO, the Tribunal ensures further litigation and continued uncertainty for both the Revenue and the assessee, non-consideration of the basic submission made at the hearing as recorded, is clearly a mistake apparent from the record

Form committee to grant Entertainment Tax Benefits in GST regime: Bombay HC

January 1, 2019 951 Views 0 comment Print

As a part of the tourism policy of the State Government, the petitioner was offered certain incentives in the nature of entertainment tax waiver. Upon introduction of Goods & Services Tax (“GST” for short), the entertainment tax was subsumed. The GST currently prescribed is @ 18%.

Delay in hearing Miscellaneous Applications by ITAT: HC expresses displeasure

December 25, 2018 570 Views 0 comment Print

Lupin Investments Pvt. Ltd vs. ITAT (Bombay High Court) HC observed that we are at a loss to understand as to why the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has not communicated to the petitioner regarding fixing a specific date of hearing of a Miscellaneous Application invoking Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In this […]

HC dismisses belated writ filed against non refund of seized cash

December 25, 2018 708 Views 0 comment Print

Kishore Jagjivandas Tanna Vs. JDIT (Bombay High Court) The Department in the Assessment Order expressly refers to this Court’s earlier order in the petitioner’s Writ Petition No.721 of 1988. Still it makes no order of refund. If this is an erroneous order and the Department failed to rectify it, then, the petitioner’s remedy was to […]

Categorical finding of fact by ITAT cannot be challenged as a substantial question of law

December 25, 2018 747 Views 0 comment Print

ITAT came to a finding that Motilal Oswal Investments Advisory Pvt. Ltd. was not a concern which could be included in the list of comparable companies. We do not think that these findings of fact are in any way perverse or vitiated by any error apparent on the face of the record which, in turn, would give rise to any substantial question of law.

Search Post by Date
July 2026
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031