Madras HC: Share allotment against pre-existing liability isn’t unexplained cash credit u/s 68, especially when no cash is involved.
Dharmakumar C. Kapadia Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court) (i) In terms of Section 48 of the Act, the income taxable under the head ‘capital gains’ is to be computed after deducting from the full value of consideration received on sale of capital asset, the cost of acquisition and improvement of the asset. Section 49 of […]
Petitioner Shah Pintu Pravinbhai, eight years ago executed one power of attorney dated 02.03.2009 in favour of his uncle Shri. Sureshchandra Velchandbhai. Uncle requested the Petitioner to open up one firm in his name have GST(VAT) and CST registration and the said accused shall manage the all business and the Petitioner has to do nothing in the said business.
the land was sold as an agricultural land and in fact, what was sold was agriculture land. What was the intention of the purchaser cannot be the determinative factor to treat the profit earned by the assessee on sale of agriculture land as business income.
CIT Vs The KCP Limited (Andhra Pradesh High Court) In this case High Court explains Entire law on accrual of liability under mercantile system of accounting explained read with Accounting Standard 4 (AS-4) (contingencies and events occurring after the balance sheet date) issued by the ICAI and Section 211 of the Companies Act, 1956. FULL […]
Vanrajbhai Hasmukhbhai Chauhan Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) Issue in brief- petitioner is a habitual offender and is in habit of transporting goods without e-way bill and similar modus operandi is adopted to pay tax, the moment he is caught. There were 10 instances wherein the petitioner is caught without e-way bill and […]
It is not the case of the Assessing Officer that any actual income was received by the assessee and the same was includible in the total income. In the facts of the case, the Authorities held that since the investments made by the assessee in the sister concerns were not the actual income received by the assessee, they could not have been included in the total income.
PCIT Vs Associated Cables Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court) Merely filing of an SLP from the order of CIT Vs. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. 394 ITR 73 would not make the order of this Court bad in law or give a license to the Revenue to proceed on the basis that the order is stayed and/or in […]
Deepak Fertilisers and Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. Vs The State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court) The only question that we have to consider is whether this concessional rate of duty could be availed of by the petitioner from 24.08.2017 to 13.10.2017. The intervening period where the taxable person under MGST Act does not continue to be […]
Shree Rama Newsprint Limited Vs. Union Of India (Gujarat High Court) Gujarat High Court on 18/09/2018 grants interim stay on the retrospective amendment in case of inverted duty refunds whereby refund on input services was denied by notification dated 13-06-2018 w.e.f. 01-07-2017. This is welcome news for persons consuming job work and other service for […]
