A.T.E. Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court) In this case, admittedly, the payments have been made beyond the due date as prescribed in the relevant Act, under which the aforesaid payments have been made. However, it is also undisputed that the payments have been made before the due date for fling the return of […]
Pr. CIT Vs Vernan Pvt. Trust (Bombay High Court) Whether the Assessee is engaged in the business of buying and selling of shares or is a mere investor, would depend on the range of factors. In the present case, the Tribunal has noted the relevant facts and analyzed such facts in proper perspective. To reiterate, […]
Shah-E-Naaz Judge Vs. Addl. DIT (Inv) (Delhi High Court) Authority and power to conduct search and seizure operations is strident and caustic power authorized by law to be taken recourse to when the conditions mentioned under different clauses of Section 132 (1) of the Act are satisfied. Constitutional validity of the said provision has been […]
Tribunal in exercise of its power under sub-section (2) of section 254 had rectified the mistake apparent on record and deleted the double addition of income in respect of assessee. Thereafter, Revenue again filed an application under sub-section (2) of section 254 seeking rectification of order passed under sub-section (2) of section 254.
Sale of Agricultural Land by the assessee was not ‘adventure in the nature of trade’ and therefore, profit earned on such sales cannot be taxed as business income.
M. Sougoumarin Vs ACIT (Madras High Court) High Court held that there was no such reason for regular loan transactions of borrowing and repayment in cash of amounts exceeding Rs.20,000/- so as to escape penal liability under Sections 271E and 271D of the IT Act. FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGMENT These […]
The channel of movement of the fund, the source of the fund, purpose of investment and the ultimate destination of the fund, were all part of the record during the assessment proceedings. There is nothing in the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer to suggest that, such investment is bogus.
Purviben Snehalbhai Panchhigar Vs ACIT (Gujarat High Court) In the present case the Assessing Officer has heard the material on record which would prima facie suggest that the assessee had sold number of shares of a company which was found to be indulging in providing bogus claim of long term and short term capital gain. […]
Commissioner of Value Added Tax Vs Otis Elevator Company (India) Ltd. (Delhi High Court) The placement of an order by the agent for procurement of the lifts, in this case, was merely an offer. It is only upon its acceptance and further steps taken by the supplier that an offer crystallizes into a binding promise […]
CIT Vs Kalpana Hansraj (Bombay High Court) Perusal of sub-section (1) of Section 54 of the Act would show that the exemption would be available to an assesse being an individual or Hindu Undivided Family where the capital gain arises from the transfer of a long-term capital asset, not being a residential house provided the remaining conditions […]
