M/s Onyx Designs Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Karnataka High Court) Conclusion: In absence of any other allegations made against the purchasing dealer in the assessment orders, merely for the reason that selling dealers had not deposited the collected tax amount or some of the selling dealers had been subsequently deregistered could not […]
Reopening of assessment on basis of withdrawal of deduction allowed under Section 10A relating to the assessment year 2007-08 was without application of mind and nothing but the change of opinion, which tantamounted to review and the same was not permissible to initiate the proceedings under Section 147/148.
Dinabandhu Mondal & Ors. Vs Laxmi Rani Mondal & Ors. (Calcutta High Court) The respondents have raised serious doubt over the authenticity of the said deed of gift because of the fact that it was registered after the death of the donor. However, well established is the law that it is not necessary for the […]
Offence under section 276CC stood committed upon the non-filing of return under section 142(1) within the prescribed time limit. Hence, no case was made out for discharge of assessee.
Pr. CIT Vs Prakash Mangilal Jain (Bombay High Court) Following FIFO or LIFO method cannot be the basis for levying penalty as per the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In order to justify the levy of penalty, two factors must co-exist, (i) there must be some material or circumstances leading to the reasonable […]
M/s. West Asia Exports & Imports Vs. ACIT (Madras High Court) We know that Sec 41(1) of Income Tax Act 1961, where there is cessation of any trading liability then the benefit accruing on account of cessation of such liability will be deemed to profits and gains of business or profession whether or not such […]
Deduction under Section 36(1)(va) with regard to Employees’ Provident Fund, Labour Welfare Fund and Employees’ State Insurance was not allowable where contribution had been made after the due date prescribed in the respective enactments.
The petitioner challenges Ext.P5 order made under Section 129 of KSGST Act. Ext.P5 is an appealable order. The petitioner by furnishing Bank Guarantee has obtained release of goods intercepted and detained by the authorities under Section 129.
Reassessment after period of four years on the ground that assessee had claimed excess deduction under Section 80IB(10) was not valid where assessee had made true and full disclosure and had consciously made only a proportionate claim under Section 80IB(10), which was rightly allowed by AO at the time of original assessment proceedings under Section 143(3).
Yashodhara Shroff Vs. Union of India (Karnataka High Court) (a) It is held that Section 164(2)(a) of the Act is not ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. The said provision is not manifestly arbitrary and also does not fall within the scope of the doctrine of proportionality. Neither does the said provision violate Article […]
