The I-T department has lost the opportunity to recover revenues running into thousands of crores after failing to file its appeals before the Bombay High Court within the stipulated period of 120 days. The Bombay High Court has dismissed about 400 appeals recently. Section 260 A of the Income-Tax Act stipulates that an appeal against the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)
With regard to the question as to whether Panna Bai was the benamidar of Dwarka Prasad Agarwala or not, the TRO, held that without doubt the transaction was benami and the real owner of the property at 13,Kalipukur Lane (Road), Sheoraphully, Hooghly, was Dwarka Prasad Agarwala and Panna Bai, wife of Dwarka Das Agarwala, was the ostensible fictitious owner.
Brief facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that assessee, a non-resident foreign company, engaged in the business of providing services in connection with extraction and production of mineral oils, submitted its return of income declaring income at Rs. 2,11,79,270/ – for the Assessment Year 1999-2000. The case was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act
20. It seems to us that the revenue functions in the same manner as other departments of administration, wherein the accepted norm is, to shift the responsibility of decision making to the judiciary. In sum and substance, the judiciary not only adjudicates upon legitimate controversies between quarreling parties, but also discharges the executive function of decision making
Benefit in lieu of salary payable to an employee opting for voluntary retirement is exempted from being charged to tax to the extent of Rs. 5 lakhs by reason of section 10(10C); even if the payment is stretched over a period of years, the same would not become chargeable to tax in any subsequent assessment year
The making and sale of advertising materials for customers in the form of banner or hoarding or film-slide, etc. is `advertisement’ as defined under section 65(2); all commercial concerns engaged in any of the activities connected with advertisement, which includes making, preparing, displaying or exhibition of advertisement, answer the description of `advertising agency’.
6. Section 132(1) (b) & (c) of the Act to the extent relevant to the present case reads thus:- 132. (1) Where the [Director General or Director] or the [Chief Commissioner or Commissioner] [or any such (Joint Director) or (Joint Commissioner) as may be empowered in this behalf by the Board], in consequence of information in his possession, has reason to believe that-(a) any person to whom a summons under sub-section
6. Admittedly, the assessee in these appeals are non-resident companies having no permanent establishment in India. It is also not disputed that after the contract received by the assessee companies in the year 1983 and before, fresh contract was given to them by the ONGC only in the year 1999. Learned counsel for the appellant (revenue) argued that since the respondent / assessee
The First Respondent had filed a claim petition against the Petitioners before the arbitrator seeking a sum of over Rs.57 lakhs stated to be due under a hire-purchase agreement. The Petitioners raised a specific plea before the arbitrator that the claim petition was not maintainable as the first Petitioner had been declared a sick industrial company by the BIFR and that section 22 of SICA placed an embargo on the continuation of the arbitral proceedings against them.
Search & seizure action u/s 132 was undertaken at the assessee’s premises. Thereafter an order of provisional attachment u/s 281B was passed. The assessee filed a writ petition challenging the validity of the search and the provisional attachment. HELD dismissing the Petition: (1) Search action u/s 132 can be initiated only if the designated authority forms a reasonable belief
