Rajasthan High Court held that the CBDT had clearly provided that prescribed limit of jewellery will not be seized, it would mean that taxpayer, found with possession of such jewellery, will also not be questioned about its source and acquisition.
Hon’ble Delhi HC has held in the case of ‘Bharti Gupta Ramola Vs. CIT’ that For computing holding period of asset both date on which asset is acquired & date on which said asset is sold or transferred are not to be excluded.
The respondents have not disputed this before us. It is true that the assessee had not deposited the long term capital gain in the capital gain account, and he had deposited the said amount in his savings account with Vijaya Bank.
Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT vs. M/s. Lakhani Marketing Inc, ITA No.970 of 2008 (O&M) , Dated- 02.04.2014 made reference to two earlier decisions of the same Court in CIT Vs. Hero Cycles Limited, 323 ITR 518 and CIT Vs. Winsome Textile Industries Ltd 319 ITR 204 to hold that Section 14A cannot be invoked when no exempt income was earned.
From the reading of Section 14A the Act, it is clear that before making any disallowance the following conditions are to exist:‑ a) That there must be income taxable under the Act, and b) That this income must not form part of the total income under the Act, and
Recently Delhi High Court has in the case of AT&T Communication Services India (P) Ltd vs. CIT held that The question whether the accounts and the related documents and records available with the A.O. present complexity is essentially to be decided by the A.O. and in this area the power of the court to intrude should necessarily be used sparingly.
Recently Delhi High Court has in the case of Acorus Unitech Wireless Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT held that The law only requires that the information or material on which the AO records his or her satisfaction is communicated to the asseseee, without mandating the disclosure of any specific document.
Recently Delhi High Court has in the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT held that It is expected of from Assessing Officer, having rejected the stay application, to wait for a reasonable period before he takes coercive steps to recover the amounts
Explanation 3 will be applicable in case where live issue, which was subsisting at the time of original assessment and if such issue has escaped the determination of the assessing officer, can be a ground for reopening. Any new issue that has cropped up subsequently on new set of facts, the aforesaid Explanation has no application.
Hon’ble Bombay HC has recently held in the case of Thermax Babcock & Wilcox Ltd. Vs. CIT that In the event, the Counsel engaged by the Department is absent without a justifiable or reasonable cause, we will invariably impose costs and to be paid by the Counsel personally.
