Follow Us:

All High Courts

Penalty proceedings invalid if notice issued without mind application

January 25, 2016 3769 Views 0 comment Print

The notice is issued proposing to levy penalty under Section 271(1) (b) of the Act whereas the order is passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1) (c) of the Act which clearly indicates that there was no application of mind by the Assessing Officer while issuing the notice under Section 274 of the Act.

Settlement Commission has no jurisdiction to direct special audit as no nexus with settlement proceedings

January 24, 2016 1039 Views 0 comment Print

Delhi High Court held In the case of Agson Global Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission & Ors that the powers and functions of an income tax authority which are to be exclusively exercised by the settlement commission must be in the context of and have a nexus with the settlement proceedings.

Interest on idle funds mainly brought for capital expansion can be set off against pre-operative expenses

January 24, 2016 2120 Views 0 comment Print

Delhi High Court held In the case of Principal CIT vs. Facor Power Ltd. that no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. This is so because, the Tribunal has correctly placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Limited [2009 315 ITR 255 (DEL).

Unascertained liability can be claimed as expense if estimated reasonably in mercantile system of accounting

January 24, 2016 13222 Views 0 comment Print

Delhi High Court held In the case of M/s. Aggarwal And Modi Enterprises (Cinema Project) Co. Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT that whether a liability is ascertained or contingent is dependent on the facts of each case. Merely because a liability may be contractual or non-statutory would not make it incapable of being ascertained.

Purchase of software as a product being a transaction of sale, payment cannot be considered as royalty

January 24, 2016 5638 Views 6 comments Print

Delhi High Court held In the case of Principal CIT vs. M. Tech India Pvt. Ltd that in cases where the payments are made for purchase of software as a product, the consideration paid cannot be considered to be for use or the right to use the software.

HC restricts remedial action on audit objection – tones down rigour of Instruction No. 9/2006

January 22, 2016 2665 Views 0 comment Print

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court) Vide this judgment, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court was pleased to read down the effect of para 4 of Instruction No. 9 of 2006, which provided that the AO was compelled to initiate reassessment in case of an audit objection, even if the AO is not in agreement with the objections of the Audit party.

Adjustment entries being not in nature of loan or advances are outside the purview of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e)

January 22, 2016 1778 Views 0 comment Print

Gujarat High Court held In the case of CIT (TDS) vs. Schutz Dishman Bio-Tech Pvt. Ltd. that there are large number of adjustment entries between the corporates. Unlike transactions of loans and advances, in this kind of adjustment entries, the movement of funds is both ways and the same is more in the nature of current account rather than a loan account.

Monetary limit for filing of appeals also applies to Pending References

January 21, 2016 1078 Views 0 comment Print

Bombay High Court held In the case of CIT vs. M/s. Sunny Sounds P. Ltd. that however these references are undoubtedly made by the tribunal, they emanate from an application by one of the parties before it , giving rise to the question of law requiring the opinion of the court.

Rehabilitation benefit cannot be denied to married daughter by Govt

January 21, 2016 2187 Views 0 comment Print

Chhattisgarh High Court held that Denial of benefit of rehabilitation, which includes employment, to a married daughter of affected family is violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India.

No change in ITAT powers to extend stay / interim relief, even post substitution of third proviso to sec. 254 (2A)

January 21, 2016 802 Views 0 comment Print

Bombay High Court held In the case of CIT vs. M/s Tata Teleservices (Maharashtra) Ltd. that court has consistently taken a view that the tribunal has power to extend the stay even after the substituted third proviso to section 254 (2A) was introduced.

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