M. Suresh Company Pvt Ltd Vs Pr. CIT (Bombay High Court) 1. This Motion is taken by the appellant assessee in Income Tax Appeal No. 738 of 2016. The appeal arises out of a judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal confirming penalty against the assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. […]
Vembu Vaidyanathan Vs Pr. CIT (Bombay High Court) During the course of assessment the Assessing Officer examined this claim and came to the conclusion that the gain arising out of sale of capital asset was a short term capital gain. The controversy between the assessee and the revenue revolves around the question as to when […]
Assessee was not entitled to claim redemption fine as business expenditure under Section 37 as the same was for the infraction of law committed by assessee.
Pr. CIT Vs M/s. Starflex Sealing India Pvt. Ltd. (Bombay High Court) Held- Court requested revenue that the State takes a consistent view and does not agitate matters on which the Court has already taken a view, without pointing out the earlier order of this Court to the subsequent Bench. Court’s endeavor is only to […]
Section 2(47)(v) – SC has held in Balbir case that transfer of any immovable property in part performance of a contract of the nature referred in section 53A of Transfer of Property Act will be completed only when the agreement is registered under Indian Registration Act.
Kalsha Builders Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT & Ors. (Bombay High Court) Subsequent Inquiry Based On Additional Material is Sustainable In Law And Requirement Of True And Full Disclosure Runs Through The Entire Assessment And Doesn’t End With Filing Of Return. FACTS – Assessee, a registered company, is engaged in the business of developing real estate. […]
CIT Vs Gundecha Builders (Bombay High Court) In the present facts it is undisputed that the respondent assessee is in the business of development of real estate projects and letting of property is not the business of the respondent assessee. Rental income received from unsold portion of the property constructed by real estate developer is […]
The court ordered the refund due for AY 1993-94 and 1995-96 to be granted to the assessee along with appropriate interest and also ordered a sum of INR 1.50 Lakhs to be paid to the assessee on account of inefficiency and lapse on the part of the department.
Reassessment made by AO was valid as assessee was unable to explain the source of income from which investments had been made by furnishing her bank statements and AO clearly had reason to believe that income of assessee with reference to these three investments had escaped assessment.
Transaction of purchase of loan from HDFC ltd. would not cover within the meaning of Specified Domestic Transactions (SDTs) as the shareholding of HDFC Ltd. of 16.39% could not be clubbed with the shareholding of the HDFC Investments Ltd. of 6.25% to cross the threshold limit of substantial interest of 20%.
