Vodafone Idea Limited Vs DCIT (Bombay High Court) 1. The petitioner has prayed for directions to the Income Tax Authorities for releasing the refund of Rs. 43.25 Crores (rounded off) with applicable interest pertaining to the assessment years 2007-08 to 2013-2014. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the documents on […]
D. K. Shivakumar Vs Directorate of Enforcement (Delhi High Court) While dealing with the bail application, it is not in dispute that three factors have to be seen viz. i) flight risk, ii) tampering evidence iii) influencing witnesses. Regarding the flight risk, neither argued by learned Additional Solicitor General nor placed any material on record, […]
Section 67(2) of the Act empowers the authorised officer to search and seize the goods, documents or books or things – however, s.67(2) does not empower the officer concerned to record statements of family members through force or coercion or to record their conversations in their mobile phones.
Limitation period for issuance of scrutiny notice under section 143(2) on filing of defective returns was to be considered from the date of filing of the original return as upon removing of defects, the return would relate back to the date of filing of the original return thus, the notice under section 143(2) was issued beyond the period of limitation and could not be sustained.
RDS Project Limited Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court) One is known by the company one keeps. Sh. Tarun Goyal has been established to be engaged in the business of providing accommodation entries. He is the promoter of about 90 companies from the same set of addresses as aforesaid. Amongst the companies promoted by him are […]
The issue under consideration is whether the denial of assessee’s application u/s 264 on the ground that assessee not having filed revised return within prescribed time is justified in law?
Since the prescribed electronic return of income did not permit assessee to make his claim to set off of his profits of this year from the carried forward losses of the previous year, therefore, assessee was directed to make a representation on the above issue to the CBDT and in the meantime, assessee without prejudice to his rights and contentions would file the return of income in electronic form on the system before the last date.
Oracle Financial Services Software Ltd Vs DCIT (Bombay High Court) We are prima facie of the view that the Revenue Authorities committed serious error. Against the total demand arising out of the order of assessment of Rs. 205 crore, the Assessing Officer has already recovered a total of Rs. 140 crores by now through different means. […]
M3M India Holdings Pvt. Ltd Vs ITSC (P&H High Court) For purposes of making an application for settlement, a case i.e. an assessment would be pending till such time as the assessment order is served upon the assessee. The assessee is entitled to proceed on the basis that till the service of the assessment order, […]
HC held that The Notification impugned dated 1.10.2013 issued by the Government of Karnataka insofar it relates to the amendment made to the Notification dated 30.3.2002 for insertion of sub-item [ii] in Serial No.[5], specifying unmanufactured tobacco in ‘sealed container’ for levy of Entry Tax at 5% with effect from 02.10.2013 cannot be held to be unjustifiable and is accordingly upheld.
