Rajan Bhatia Vs CBDT (Delhi High Court) Section 115BBDA is a non-obstante provision that would apply and prevail over Section 10(34) of the Act. Section 115 BBDA states that notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, where the total income of a specified resident assessee, includes income by way of dividend declared, distributed or paid by […]
Where assessee had claimed deduction under section 80-IB in respect to income of housing development project, the same could not be rejected merely because the land was held by original owner when the housing development project was executed, would not be detrimental to assessee’s claim of deduction under section 80-IB(10).
Golden Gate Properties Ltd Vs DCIT (Karnataka High Court) Section 278AA makes it clear that in order to get over the penal consequences that follow on account of non-payment of tax deducted at source, it is open for the accused persons to come clean of the said charge by showing reasonable cause for failure to […]
Advance tax, self assessed tax and TDS paid prior to filing of declaration, should not be adjusted towards discharge of assessees liability to pay tax, surcharge and penalty under the scheme of Income Tax Declaration Scheme, 2016 in absence of any specific provision in the scheme, granting benefit of the self assessed tax or advance tax under the Act.
Kuntal A Parikh Vs Mr. Utkarsh Sharma (Gujarat High Court) Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents, supported the impugned order by submitting that admittedly the goods were not accompanied by Part-B of the E-way bills and hence, the second respondent was wholly justified in detaining the conveyance and goods. It was further submitted that as […]
Since a bare reading of scheme of Section 50C would show that assessee could object to presumptive value as per Section 50C (1) and, therefore, it was only after hearing the objections of assessee, the fair market value of capital asset as per ‘Guidance Value’ could be determined by authorities, therefore, the matter was remitted back to Assessing Authority to decide both the questions about the valuation of the property to be taken while dealing with the objections of the assessee against the Report of Departmental Valuation Officer as well as the presumptive value under Section 50C and then compute ‘Fair Market Value’ under Section 48.
In this case, the eligibility to the exemption sought has not been denied by the department and rightly so. Thus, the defence that the assessment is correct in the light of the assessee non co-operation is not a defence at all, and is rejected.
Yokogawa India Ltd Vs Union of India (Karnataka High Court) Facts Assailing the communication dated 22.03.2019 issued by the respondent No.6, Petitioner inter alia seeks a direction to the respondents to enable them to revise their Form GST TRAN-1 in order to transit the amount of Rs.4,31,32,066/- in the Electronic Credit Ledger in terms of […]
The so-called bank guarantee commission was not in the nature of commission paid to an agent but it was in the nature of bank charges for providing one of the banking services. The requirement of section 194H of the Act, therefore, would not arise.
Mohanlal Champalal Jain Vs ITO (Bombay High Court) Assessing Officer has proceeded on wrong premise that even when called upon to state why the petitioner had not filed return of income, he had not responded to the said query. The petitioner did communicate to the Department that he had no taxable income and therefore, there […]
