PCIT Vs ITAT (Bombay High Court) From a careful reading of the provision, it is seen that Tribunal is vested with the power to rectify any mistake apparent from the record to amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1) of Section 254 at any time within six months from the end of the […]
Bhavya Construction Co Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court) Section 254(1): The basic grievance of the Appellant is that the impugned order of the Tribunal has been passed in breach of principles of natural justice. This for two reasons, one the decisions relied upon by the Tribunal of its own (not cited at the bar) in […]
The assessee had furnished PAN, copies of the income tax returns of the investors as well as copy of the bank accounts in which the share application money was deposited in order to prove genuineness of the transactions. In so far credit worthiness of the creditors were concerned, the bank accounts of the investors showed that they had funds to make payments for share application money.
Assessee had advanced loans to its subsidiary company. The loan was interest bearing. The Respondent- Assessee claimed that the subsidiary company became loss making company and the Respondent- Assessee took a decision to write off the loan and claim the same as bad debts.
Since there was no employer-employee relationship between the assessee on one hand and the doctors on the other hand to whom the free samples were provided, the expenditure incurred for the same cannot be construed as fringe benefits to be brought within the additional tax net by levy of fringe benefit tax.
CIT (TDS) Vs Vodafone Cellular Ltd. (Bombay High Court) Whether provisions of Section 194H of the Income Tax Act, 1961 will be applicable in case of discounts given by the assessee to the distributors on account of prepaid SIM cards. Section 194H of the Act deals with commission or brokerage. It says that any person, […]
It was held that whether the purchases were bogus or whether the parties from whom such purchases were allegedly made were bogus was essentially a question of fact. When the Tribunal had concluded that the assessee did make the purchase, as a natural corollary not the entire amount covered by such purchase but the profit element embedded therein would be subject to tax.
In the well known case of Deepak Kochhar, the husband of ex-ICICI Bank CEO Chanda Kochhar Bombay High Court has passed an order that the Income Tax (IT) Assessment Order pertaining to the Assessment Year 2012-13 which was passed against Deepak Kochhar was put on hold and further, the High Court ordered to move to the First Appellate Authority challenging the Income Tax (IT) Assessment Order and till such remedy is availed by the appellant the Income Tax (IT) Assessment Order will be put on stay.
Anand Developers challenges IT Act notice for Assessment Year 2012-13. Jurisdictional issues, disclosures, and reopening examined by Bombay to Goa High Court.
Section 68 – Bogus Cash Credit – The expression ‘any previous year’ to mean as not referring to all the previous years, but, the previous year in relation to the assessment year concerned.
