Simply because some incidental activity of the assessee is revenue generating, does not provide any justification to hold that it is tainted with “commerciality” and reaches a point where relationship of mutuality ends and that of trading begins.
CIT Vs. Db (India) Securities Ltd. (Delhi High Court) The assessee, a broker, purchased shares of the value of Rs.1,06,10,247 on behalf of its sub-broker. The sub-broker made payment of Rs.64 lakhs. As the remaining amount of Rs.41,37,881 was not paid, the assessee did not deliver those shares to the client though it offered the brokerage to tax.
The appellant/assessee, which is a HUF, sold its agricultural land for Rs.14,28,400/ – in September, 1995 giving rise to a long term capital gain of Rs.9,67,412/ -. The assessee claimed that the capital gain be not charged as it was entitled to the benefit of Section 54-F of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The crux of the matter is: what is the meaning to be ascribed to the expression used for the purposes of the business as found in Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The provision of Section 32 pertains to depreciation. The contention of the Revenue is that with respect to any machinery for which depreciation is claimed under Section 32,
ICAI won the Income Tax Exemption Case in the High Court – Scope of the term “Charitable Purpose” defined by the High Court – In order to have a charity, you must have a source of income – Section 10(23C)(iv) September 2, 2009. Director General of Income Tax (Exemption) has denied the exemption to Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI)
1. This is an appeal preferred by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the „Act‟) against the judgment dated 09.03.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the „Tribunal‟) in ITA No. 4125/Del/1999 in respect of assessment year 1996-97. The Revenue is aggrieved by virtue of the fact that by the impugned judgment
Upholding the Central Information Commission (CIC) order that office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is well within the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the Delhi High Court Wednesday ruled that judges should declare their assets. In a historical judgement, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat said judges are accountable but they are also subject to some constraints.
In Ram Commercial Enterprises 246 ITR 568 (Del) {affirmed in Rampur Engineering 309 ITR 143 (Del) (FB)}, the Delhi High Court held that if the AO did not record his satisfaction that the assessee had concealed particulars of his income before completion of the assessment proceedings, the initiation of penalty proceedings
This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks the issuance of a writ to waive the interest levied under Section 220 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act for short) pertaining to three consecutive years in respect of which the original Demand had already been paid. The Petitioner has contended that for the Assessment Years 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83, the Revenue has raised a demand of Rupees 2,84,546/-, Rupees 6,95,479/- and Rupees 15,23,079/- respectively in regard whereof Demand Notices were served on 30.03.1983, 27.04.1983 and 27.04.1983 respectively.
If apparently reliable material could not be directly used against an assessee solely because it was not collected during a Search of that assessee, a fortiori, material palpably concerning a third party with no connection with the raided party must be ignored.
