The AO’s reason for re-opening is that along with the certificate in Form 56F, which was the certificate of the CA, the working sheet of deduction was not enclosed. That was not a requirement of law. What Form 56F has to be accompanied with is specified under the Income Tax Rules itself. The mere fact that the working sheet may not have been enclosed does not amount to a failure by the Assessee to make a full and true disclosure of all material facts. Consequently, the Court is satisfied that the second reason for re-opening is also unsustainable in law.
The mere circumstance that the depreciation rate is spelt out in the Schedule to the Income-tax Act in our opinion is not conclusive as to the nature of the expenditure and whether it resulted an enduring advantage to a particular assesseeIt is nobody’s case that assessee is dealing with computer softwares or is in the business of any related services.
CIT Vs. Brahmaputra Capital & Financial Services Ltd (Delhi High Court) The revenue argues that in respect of the three entities, the decision not to reflect revenue recognition, and treat the interest payable as NPA could not be allowed and the ITAT erred in holding that under RBI’s norms, the revenue recognition method adopted was […]
Samvardhana Motherson International Ltd. Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court) The chronology of events leading up to the passing of the orders under section 143(3) of the Act, clearly shows that the assessing officer was ‘satisfied with the claim of the assessee’ while passing the original orders. Rule 8D is triggered only in a case where […]
Virag Tiwari Vs. Principal CIT & Others (Delhi High Court) In the present case we perceive that an equitable resolution is possible on interpretation of the provisions without undermining the object and purpose behind the Amendment Act. Thus while we have rejected the argument that advance tax of Rs. 85,50,000/- can treated as payment of […]
These are eleven appeals by the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (hereafter ‘Revenue’) under section 27A of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (WTA), against the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for assessment years (‘AYs’) 1984-85 to 1992-93 and assessment years 1997-98 to 1998-99.
Indo Arya Central Transport Limited Vs. CIT (Delhi High Court) M/s Indo Arya Central Transport Limited have filed the present writ petition praying for the following reliefs:- “(a) Issue a writ of certiorari setting aside/quashing the impugned order dated 14.03.2017 passed by the Respondent No. 1; (b) Restrain the Respondent No. 1 and the officers […]
Sky Light Hospitality LLP, a limited liability partnership, who had on 13.05.2016 taken over and acquired rights and liabilities of M/s Sky Light Hospitality Private Limited upon conversion under the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008, has filed the present writ petition impugning notice dated 30.03.2017 for the assessment year 2010-11 under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟ for short).
Principal CIT Vs. Smt. Ritu Singal (Delhi High Court) In construing Section 271AAA one must not lose sight of its essential purpose which resulted in its enactment. There is a penalty at the rate of 10% of the undisclosed amount declared, if the conditions in Section 271AAA (2) are not met with. This is quite […]
Shri Shyam Sunder Vs. Sohan Singh @ Shoban Singh (Delhi High Court) The Trial court has held that in view of the provisions of the Income Tax Act, no loan above Rs. 20,000/- could have been given in cash, so the loan transaction is not liable to be recognized. In so far as this is […]
