Keeping in view that the Income-tax Act, 1961 was amended by the Finance Act, 2005 permitting an individual to deposit to the maximum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in any of the specified schemes, the concerned authorities should take steps to amend clause 3 of the PPF Scheme in terms of section 80C of the Income-tax Act.
Unlock the Calcutta High Court’s perspective on Section 68 and Bogus Capital Gains from Penny Stocks in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Alpine Investments. Dive into the court’s thorough examination of the matter, emphasizing the significance of documented evidence such as contract notes and bills in supporting share transactions. Despite initial suspicions, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal (ITA No.620 of 2008), asserting that transactions backed by strong documentary evidence cannot be dismissed on mere suspicion. Explore the detailed order/judgment to understand the court’s reasoning, background of the case, the search and seizure operation, and subsequent assessment proceedings. Gain valuable insights into how the court weighed conflicting statements, including the deposition of Mr. Kamlesh A. Rupani, and upheld the authenticity of share transactions. Stay informed about the court’s dismissal of any substantial question of law in this matter.
Writ petitions were filed challenging the constitutional validity of the provisions of Section 245HA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 under which the petitioners’ applications before the Settlement Commission are to be treated as having abated on account of failure of the Settlement Commission to pass orders under Section 245D(4) of the Act on or before 31.03.2008. In view of the fact that the Supreme Court was seized of an identical issue, the petitions were disposed of with the direction that the parties would abide by the decision of the Supreme Court and in the meanwhile the assessment proceedings would be stayed. Comed Laboratories vs. UOI (Gujarat High Court)
CIT vs. Vishnu Industrial Gases (Delhi High Court) – Where the department had not disputed that the expenditure was deductible in principle but was only disputing the year in which the deduction could be allowed HELD, castigating the department, that as the tax rates were the same in both years, the department should not fritter away its energies in raising questions as to the year of deductibility/taxability.
CIT vs. Dodsal Ltd (Bombay High Court) – It is not possible to accept the submission of the Revenue that once the AO comes to the conclusion that there is a breach of the mandate of Section 158BFA(1), then the penalty has to be mandatory imposed. The terminology of section 158BFA makes it clear that the AO has a discretion in the matter of levy of penalty.
The agreement for sale dated 24.06.1977 was substituted by the collaboration agreement dated 06.10.1981 and the agreement to sell dated 06.10.1981. There was no interest, much less, any right transferred in the property in favour of SSPL by the assessees and hence, as observed above, there was no transfer of a right in property as contemplated under Section 2 (47) of the Act.
the Tribunal was right in rejecting the revenue’s application for raising the additional ground as that would have amounted to introduction of a new source of income. The decision in National Thermal Power Corporation (Supra) also does not come to the aid of the revenue in this case. A new ground can be permitted in appeal so long as the relevant facts are on record and the ground sought to be raised could not have been raised earlier for good reasons. As noted in National Thermal Power Corporation (Supra), the Tribunal has the discretion to allow or not to allow a new ground to be raised. A new ground may be allowed to be raised only when it arises from the facts which are on record. (Para 18)
In the present appeals, the appellant i.e., the Pay and Accounts Officer is representing the Government of Tamil Nadu. It is an admitted fact that interest imposed on the appellant under Section 201(1A) has been paid by the appellant on protest and pursued the appellate remedy by obtaining necessary sanction from the Government in G.O.Ms.No.114 dated 27.3.2002
This appeal has been filed by the assessee, against the judgment of the learned Tribunal, partly allowing the cross objections of the assessee, and remanding the matter to the Commissioner. The remand has been made on the aspect of gross profit rate. However, the learned Commissioner, and the learned Tribunal, upheld the rejection of books of accounts,
The circular, dated August 1, 2006, aforementioned, is binding on the department and this circular makes it more than abundantly clear that when a builder, promoter or developer undertakes construction activity for its own self, then, in such cases, in the absence of relationship of ‘service provider’ and ‘service recipient’, the question of providing ‘taxable service’ to any person by any other person does not arise at all.
