Bengali Lal & Sons Vs State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri R.C. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents no. 5 and 6 as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents no. 1 to 4. The petitioner is a partnership firm and had applied for registration under […]
Advantage India Logistics Private Limited Vs Union of India (Madhya Pradesh HC) On due of the provisions of Section 4 of the IGST Act, we are of the view that officers appointed under the MPGST Act are authorized to be proper officers for the purpose of IGST and, therefore, the contention of the petitioner that […]
M/s. 3E Infotech Vs Customs (Madras High Court) we are of the opinion, that when service tax is paid by mistake a claim for refund cannot be barred by limitation, merely because the period of limitation under Section 11B had expired. Such a position would be contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, […]
Abhishek Jain Vs ITO (Delhi High Court) Abhishek Jain, as an individual, has filed the present writ petition for quashing notice dated 18th February, 2016 issued under Section 148 read with Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) for the assessment year 2009-10 by the Income-tax Officer, Ward No.1 (1), […]
Bombay High Court ruling on revised income tax return. Second proviso to Section 158BC(a) discussed. Learn about the key legal considerations.
Indian Galvanics Cyrium Foils Ltd. Vs DCIT (Bombay High Court) In the case in hand, Appellants-Assessee is a company manufacturing copper foils. Son of one of the directors was sent to USA for completing course in Business Administration which was ‘general’ in nature and had no direct nexus with the business activities of the Appellant-Assessee. Appellants did not place […]
J. J. Development Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT (Calcutta High Court) Section 68 Bogus share capital: The appellant-assessee has referred to a judgment of this Court reported at 114 ITR 689 for the proposition that upon the identity of the person who has put in the money being established by the assessee, the onus is on […]
Assessee-company engaged in business of letting out of immovable property, had claimed benefit of section 54. AO found that assessee, being a company was not entitled to claim deduction under section 54; thus, he initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. However, assessee contended that penalty was not imposable, only on account of having made an ineligible claim.
Pawan Kumar Garg Vs CIT (Punjab and Haryana HC) Conclusion: If the explanation offered by assessee regarding nature and source of sum credited in his books of account was not found satisfactory by AO, the said sum could be charged to income tax under section 68. Held: During assessment proceedings, AO noted that credit liability […]
The expression does not form part of the total income in Section 14A envisages that there should be an actual receipt of the income, which is not includible in the total income, during the relevant previous year for the purpose of disallowing any expenditure incurred in relation to the income in question
