All High Courts

Expenditure incurred by a foreign company in India during period of lull in its business in India not allowable

CIT Vs Foramer France (Uttarakhand High Court)

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) ...

Read More

Section 271(1)(c) can be invoked only if there is a "concealment of particulars of income"

CIT Vs Haryana Warehousing Corporation (Punjab & Haryana High Court)

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 e...

Read More

Expenses reimbursed cannot be excluded from the amount defined in section 44BB(2)

CIT Vs RBF Rig Corporation (Uttarakhand High Court)

Whether, the ITAT has erred in law in holding that reimbursement of expenses on account of catering charges and fuel etc. to the assessee were not part of the gross receipts for the purposes of Section 44BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 5. Before further discussion, we think it just and proper to quote the provisions contained...

Read More

Transfer Fees recd by Co-op Hsg Soc from members as per bye-laws or Government directions is exempt

Sind Co-operative Housing Society Vs. ITO

The society is registered with the object principally of looking after the property including building thereon. There is no trading or business transactions. The members by adopting the bye-laws agree amongst themselves that a fee for transfer of flat/tenement when it is sold would be paid to the society. It may be that both incoming or o...

Read More

Sum due u/s 434 of the Companies Act, must mean what has fructified and can not merely be a contingent liability or deferred payment

Priyaraj Electronics Ltd. Vs Motorola India (P.) Ltd. (Punjab & Haryana High Court)

The sum due as referred to under section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 must mean what has fructified and can not merely be a contingent liability or deferred payment; if the liability has not fructified within 21 days from the time the date of service of notice, it cannot be said to be a debt which company is unable to pay, in order that...

Read More

Gratuity payment under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 or otherwise exempt to the extent covered under the Income Tax Act

North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs Deputy Labour Commissioner (High Court of Karnataka)

No doubt, section 192 of the Income-tax Act requires the employer to deduct the income-tax from the salary and the salary is defined under section 17 of the Income-tax Act, which includes wages, any annuity or pension, any gratuity, any fees, commissions, perquisites or profits in lieu of or in addition to any salary or wages, any advance...

Read More

Bombay High Court dismissed about 400 appeals of Income Tax department

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 ...

Read More

Making and sale of advertising materials for customers is advertisement service liable for service tax

CCE & C Vs Zodiac Advertisers (Kerala High Court)

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 d...

Read More

If revenue believes that Assessee evaded tax by furnishing fake or exaggerated bills then they need not disclose the reason of search & seizure

Genom Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (Investigation) [Bombay High Court]

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 possessio...

Read More

Department need not provide reason for search U/s. 132

Genom Biotech Vs. DIT (Bombay High Court)

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 desi...

Read More

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (4,679)
Company Law (5,948)
Custom Duty (7,737)
DGFT (4,218)
Excise Duty (4,361)
Fema / RBI (4,181)
Finance (4,376)
Income Tax (32,977)
SEBI (3,447)
Service Tax (3,553)