This petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India registers a challenge to the order dated August 23, 2007, passed by the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), dismissing four appeals being
CIT vs Oil and Natural Gas Corpn. Ltd.- Business loss: Business expenditure – Notional Liability: Loss due to fluctuations in foreign exchange rates The assessee had borrowed funds in foreign exchange for the purpose of capital outlay.
This petition seeks a direction for releasing of 10 kgs. of silver jewellery, belonging to the petitioner but seized from his adoptive father on 20.11.1979 during search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.-This writ petition is directed against the notice dated 29-3-2004 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-18, New Delhi under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘said Act’)
The deletion of the addition of Rs. 33 lacs, which had been made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained share capital under Section 68 of the said Act. The second issue pertains to the deletion made by the Tribunal of the addition of Rs. 35,06,292/- by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged unexplained security deposits under Section 68 of the said Act.
Since this appears to be the first case of its kind in India (subject to correction) where derivatives contracts are challenged as illegal and void and also since the jargon is not too familiar even to P.Ramanatha Iyer (of Law Lexicon) and Black (of Law Dictionary), a brief prelude has become necessary before we plunge into details.
The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the goods manufactured by hundred percent EOU (Export-Oriented Undertaking) when sold in India can be subjected to levy of Education Cess under the Central Excise Act.
Wallfort Shares & stock Brokers Ltd v ITO Where the assessee bought units of a mutual fund, received tax-free dividend thereon and immediately thereafter redeemed the units and claimed the difference between the cost price and redemption value as a loss and the same had been upheld by a Five Member Special Bench of the Tribunal as a genuine loss,
It is also to be noted that Dr. Pal at that point of time tried to distinguish the said judgment in the Hamilton’s case (supra) with the judgment of Hope (India) Ltd. (supra) and submitted that there is no inconsistency in the view taken by the subsequent Division Bench in the Hope (India) Ltd case (supra) and in this subsequent decision the Hon’ble Division Bench duly considered the judgment delivered in the Hamilton’s case
SET Satellite (Singapore) vs. DDIT (Bombay High Court) – Where the assessee had a ‘Dependent Agency Permanent Establishment’ (‘DAPE’) (“SET India”) in India and it was admitted by the Revenue that the assessee had paid ‘arms length’ remuneration to the said dependent agent but the Tribunal still held (106 ITD 75) that notwithstanding the taxability of the said dependent agent in accordance with domestic law, the assessee had to be assessed in respect of the profits attributable to the said DAPE, held, reversing the judgment of the Tribunal that
