M/s Indus Projects Limited Vs UOI (Gujarat High Court) 1. Petitioner has to pay GST dues of Rs.3.85 crores (rounded off), for which, due to its financial difficulties, the petitioner has applied to the authority for installments. Such request came to be turned down by the impugned order dated 30.08.2018 without assigning reasons. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that […]
Tribunal, on examination of facts, has come to the conclusion that the investment made by the shareholders is not hit by Section 68 of the Act. It records, that the entire basis of the Revenue’s case is based on surmise that the respondent was taking bogus purchase bills and cash was introduced in the form of share capital without any evidence in support. Therefore, the view taken by the impugned order of the Tribunal on facts is a possible.
PCIT Vs Starflex Sealing India Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court) We are pained at this attitude on the part of the State to obtain orders of admission on pure questions of law by not pointing out that an identical question was considered by this Court earlier and dismissed by speaking order. This is not for the first time that […]
LG Electronics India Private Limited Vs PCIT (Delhi High Court) Mr. Deepak Chopra, learned counsel for the Petitioner, has produced before this Court a copy of OM dated 31st July, 2017 which modifies the earlier OM, dated 29th February, 2016, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (‘CBDT’), stating that standard rate for grant of stay […]
Referring to a circular issued by the CBDT in Circular No.16/2015 dated 06.10.2015, held that film production expenses of abandoned films should be treated as revenue expenditure. This decision was followed in the case of Asia Power Projects P Ltd. (supra).
CIT Vs Aquatic Remedies Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court) It is undisputed position before us that in terms of Section 151(2) of the Act, the sanctioning/ permission to issue notice under Section 148 of the Act has to be issued by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax. We find that the Assessing Officer had not […]
Bhagavan Das Dhananjaya Das Vs Union of India (Madras High Court) (a) When the New Act 2013 came into effect from 1.4.2014, the second respondent herein has wrongly given retrospective effect and erroneously disqualified the petitioner-directors from 1.11.2016 itself before the deadline commenced wrongly fixing the first financial year from 1.4.2013 to 31.3.2014. (b) By virtue of the […]
Parliament did not seek to disturb and / or affect cases where deduction is taken twice over i.e. under Section 80IA and 80HHC of the Act on the same profit, provided it was less than the gross total income as defined in Section 80IB(5) of the Act.
Tribunal ought to have allowed the petitioner’s Rectification Application and considered the petitioner’s Appeal before it on merits, inter-alia, taking into account the material and case laws which has been already filed by the petitioner’s during the hearing leading to the order dated 13th February, 2015.
PCIT Vs Starflex Sealing India Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court) SMS communication by Mr. Pinto to the Associate of this Court is contrary to the statement made on behalf of the Revenue yesterday by the learned Additional Solicitor General, assisted by Mr. Mohanty, learned advocate for the Revenue. Requesting an Advocate to put in a […]
