Kanubhai M. Patel HUF Vs Hiren Bhatt (Gujarat High Court)- In the present case, the impugned notices have been signed on 31.03.2010, whereas the same were sent to the speed post centre for booking only on 07.04.2010.
CIT, Bangalore Vs M/s Maxim India Integrated (Karnataka High Court)- When assessee has been availing benefits u/s 80HHE, and applies to the STPI Director for the change in status, it cannot be denied benefits of Sec 10A on the ground that it had sought permission for a new unit and not the conversion of the existing one.
Hyundai Heavy Industries Ltd VS Union of India (Uttarakhand High Court)- The petitioner consequently orally objected to the constitution of the collegium and submitted that there was a conflict of interest if the DIT-II continues to sit in the collegium since he was involved in the reassessment proceedings.
Emami Ltd. Vs CIT (High Court of Calcutta)- Where on the last date of the Financial Year preceding the relevant Assessment Year, the assessee had no liability to pay advance tax, he would be nevertheless asked to pay interest in terms of Section 234B and Section 234C of the Act for default in making payment of tax in advance which was physically impossible.
Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-assessee under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs.
ITA No.174 of 2011 has been preferred by the assessee under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of ITAT Delhi “C” Bench in ITA No. 2656/Delhi/2008 dated 10.7.2009 for the assessment year 2002-03 raising following substantial questions of law
In this appeal preferred under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’) assailing the order dated 13-2-2009 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench “B”, New Delhi (for short ‘the tribunal’) in ITA No. 2299/Del/2007 pertaining to the assessment year 2001-02 the revenue has raised the following substantial question of law.
CIT vs. Cosmo Films Ltd (Delhi High Court) – High Court observed that if the sale and lease back agreement between the assessee and the OSEB indicate that the assessee had purchased the plant and machinery from OSEB for a price and had leased out the same to OSEB on lease rent, the revenue department cannot discard the said sale and lease back agreement on the ground that the underlying motive of the assessee to enter into the said transaction was to reduce its income-tax liability.
Manharbhai Muljibhai Kakadia Vs UoI (Gujrat HC at Ahemdabad) Whether the assessee is entitled to waiver of interest u/s 234B & 234C relying on the circular dated 23.05.2006 in which waiver is given on account of non-adjustment of seized cash by the department against the tax liability though at the time of making of application of waiver such circular was superseded by circular dated 26.06.2006 in which no such waiver was permitted. – Assessee’s appeal dismissed.
It is noticed that the respondent issued a notice to the petitioner under section 271FA on February 23, 2010, requiring him to attend his office on March 11, 2010, and show cause as to why the penalty under section 271FA should not have been imposed upon him for failure to file the annual information returns within the prescribed time.
