Madaparambil Varkey Varghese Vs ACIT (Kerala High Court) The compensation awarded for the acquisition of land, buildings etc of the petitioner by Kochi Metro Rail Project is Rs.7,54,24,705/-. During the Assessment Year 2016-17 the petitioner has received 80% of the compensation determined through Award dated 30.10.2015. While computing the net taxable income of the petitioner-assessee, […]
Smt. Ritha Sabapathy Vs DCIT (Madras High Court) We reiterate that the fact finding Tribunals should not shirk their responsibility to decide the cases on merits because the view and reasons given by such Tribunals are important for the Constitutional Higher Courts to look into while deciding the substantial questions of law under Section 260-A […]
Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed respondents to release the goods by furnishing security of immovable property where the petitioner has filed the appeal
CIT (TDS) Vs Jaypee Sports International Ltd. (Allahabad High Court) Word ‘rent’ means any payment by whatever name called under any lease, sub-lease, tenancy or any other agreement or arrangement for the use of any land and came to the conclusion that lease money or annual rent is rent within the meaning of section 194-I […]
The common issue which falls for consideration in these batch of cases is as to whether the respondent, the Income Tax Department, is justified in insisting upon recovery of tax at source from the salary payable to Nuns/Fathers/Priests working in various Teaching Institutions established and administered by the petitioners.
Where the intention of assessee for purchase of the land was for resale and within a short period of time though the sale was only to the companies of which the assessee was a director, it was apparent that assessee was acting as an interface to purchase the lands from the land owners and then converted in non-agricultural use and sold to these companies who were in the business of real estate. Hence, properties sold were not excluded from the meaning of capital asset, as they were not agricultural land as defined by section 2(14).
Pr. CIT Vs DLF Commercial Projects Corporation (Delhi High Court) Neither the provisions of section 194C nor section 194J obliges the person making the payment to deduct anything from contractual payments such as those made for reimbursement of expenses, other than what is defined as “income”. The law thus obliges only amounts which fulfil the […]
When the very arrest of the petitioners is not prohibited prior to the completion of the assessment, any coercive action lesser than arrest, can not also be said to be prohibited.
CIT Vs Saifee Hospital Trust (Bombay High Court) The Assessing Officer held that services of catering rendered by M/s Monginis is technical service and therefore, deduction of tax at source by the respondent has to be under Section 194J of the Act. However, in appeal both the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) as well […]
Uthangarai Sri Vidya Mandir Educational and Social Welfare Trust Vs ACIT (Madras High Court) In the present case, the officer proceeds to mechanically call upon the petitioner to remit 20% of the demand without examining the appropriateness of the direction to the facts and circumstances of the petitioners’ case. For this sole reason, Hon’ble High […]
