M/s. Atria Convergence Technologies Ltd Vs Union of India (Karnataka High Court) Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to revise or rectify the errors in the FORM GST TRAN-1 in terms of Rule 120A wherein the Commissioner is empowered to extend the time period specified in Rule 117. As the […]
Pr. CIT Vs. Macquarie Global Services Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court) The respondent-assessee had set up a new unit in Special Economic Zone (SEZ) income from which was claimed as exempt under Section 10AA of the Act for a period of ten years commencing from the Assessment Year 2010-11. Exemption was allowed in the Assessment […]
Pr. CIT Vs Jubilant Energy Nelp-V- Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court) Money received by the respondent-assessee under the ICDs of Rs. 55.30 Crores was in the preceding year. Rs. 50 Crores was thereafter transferred and given as ICDs to M/s Jubilant Enpro Private Limited also in the preceding year. There was a nexus between the […]
Amount received by letting out the shop rooms in the mall is business income taxable under the head Profits and gains of business.
Precilion Holdings Limited Vs DCIT (Bombay High Court) Conclusion: AO was not permitted to reopen assessment merely because in the later year, he took a different view on the basis of similar material available at the time of original scrutiny assessment as there was no failure on the part of assessee to disclose truly and […]
Bharti Infratel Limited Vs DCIT (Delhi High Court) Conclusion: Notice for re-assessment issued under Section 148 against assessee-company was quashed as assessee had made full and true disclosure of material facts; nothing was concealed, withheld and left to be factually discovered in the form of ‘material’ mentioned in detail in accounts and other evidence and […]
Merely because PAN is active, it cannot be presumed that the assessee is alive and notice for reassessment be issued in the name of dead person, more particularly, when the department was made aware about the death of the assessee prior to issuance of the notice.
Forfeiture of advance/deposit suffered by the assessee-company towards proposed purchase of plot, unilaterally deducted by HSIDC was a capital loss not a revenue loss as loss incurred was in the transaction relating to and for acquisition of a land/plot which was a capital asset.
whether the AO is correct in disallowance made u/s 14A irrespective of the fact that assessee do not have any Exempt Income during the Year?
Since Department had correct address of assessee and sending notice for reassessment at incorrect address drawing a presumption of service of notice was rendered assessment proceedings as invalid.
