We have found that the Revenue’s advocates are often handicapped for neither the records are produced nor are officers competent to give instructions to these advocates for the Revenue present in the Court. It is time to remind the Revenue that arguing legal matters or proceedings before the highest court in the State should not be taken casually and lightly.
PCIT Vs M/s. Sakthi Sugers Ltd. (Madras High Court) Issue- Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in allowing the rental income of the assessee as ‘business income’ instead of ‘income from house property‘ when the principal object of the assessee company is not letting out of properties ? When this matter came up for hearing on 08.12.2017, we posed a […]
Prabhat Agarwal Vs DCIT (Delhi High Court) In this case revenue played a subterfuge, in trying to cover up its omission, and in ante dating the record, in the attempt to establish that such reasons existed, and this court’s interference was not called for. In these circumstances, this court hereby directs the Chief Commissioner concerned […]
In view of the GST regime and the IT platform being new, it may not be justifiable to expect the users to back up digital evidences. Even under the old taxation laws, it is a settled legal position that substantive input credits cannot be denied or altered on account of procedural grounds.
If the view taken by the AO was a plausible view and if it results in loss of revenue, it could not be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue for the purpose of invoking the power under section 263.
Janak Kanakbhai Trivedi Vs ITO (Gujarat High Court) It is the case of the appellant that the impugned ancestral property was actually acquired by the HUF of the appellant and that actually by mistake the appellant has given his individual PAN number at the time of execution of the sale deed. It has been argued […]
Sri Mathur has placed before us an order under Section 119 whereby the due date has already been extended by this order till 15th October, 2018. In view of the above, it appears that the matter has become infructuous as it has lost its efficacy.
Arun Arya Vs. ITO (J&K High Court) Under the Income-Tax Act, 1961 there are various provisions for compliance with taxing provisions and the collection of taxes. The Income-tax Act seeks to enforce tax compliance in a three fold manner; namely 1) Imposition of interests 2) Imposition of penalties and 3) Prosecutions. In the fight against […]
In the case of Association Of Tax Practitioners & Hindu Economic Forum Vs. UOI filed with Kerala High Court it was argued that once an assessee is allowed to submit returns upto 15.10.2018, the department cannot demand interest under section 234A for the extended period. Hon’ble high court posted these writ petitions for further consideration on 11.10.2018.
Section 74(5) of the Act merely enables the petitioner to pay penalty at 15% on his own accord, in which event the assessing authority cannot thereafter issue a notice seeking recovery of the balance 85% penalty (i.e., penalty equivalent to the tax specified in the notice).
