Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the goods in question can be treated as parts or accessories of computer system or peripherals. As per clarification by the Commissioner also printer is a part of computer system and peripherals. The printer cannot be operated without inkjet cartridges or toner cartridges and thus the said items can certainly be treated as accessories to the printer.
CIT vs. Jawahar Bhattacharjee we hold that Daga Entrade P. Ltd. lays down correct law and the same is not in conflict with the earlier order of this Court in Rajendra Singh. Jurisdiction under Section 263 can be exercised whenever it is found that the order of assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Cases of assessment order passed on wrong assumption of facts, on incorrect application of law, without due application of mind or without following principles of natural justice are not beyond the scope of Section 263 of the Act.
Section 54E, read with section 50, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Capital gains – Not to be charged in certain cases – Assessment year 1991-92 – Whether section 50 nowhere says that depreciable asset shall be treated as short-term capital asset and section 54E has an application where long-term capital asset is transferred – Held, yes – Whether capital gain may have been received by assessee on depreciable asset, and if conditions necessary under section 54E are complied with by assessee, he will be entitled to benefit under section 54E – Held, yes
CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 91 (Gauhati High Court) -The Supreme Court, in Liberty India v. CIT [2009] 317 ITR 218, observed that section 80-IB provides for deduction in respect of profits and gains “derived from the business” of the assessee and accordingly, the Parliament intended to cover sources of profits and gains not beyond the first degree. There should be a direct nexus between the generation of profits and gains and the source of profits and gains, the latter being directly relatable to the business of the assessee. Any other source, not falling within the first degree, can only be considered as ancillary to the business of the assessee.
Where the assessee was not provided with any opportunity of being heard in the matter, the reasons assigned in the order which was “administrative convenience and for co-ordinating effective investigation” also could not be said to be the reasons as envisaged in Section 127(1).
Decision of a company has to rest on views of majority; in case of disagreement by the minority, remedy lies u/s 397 & 398 and not in Civil Court. When a case falls within four corners of section 397 and/or section 398, ordinary civil court’s jurisdiction would stand barred to deal with such a dispute
No provision similar to the provision enabling both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal to admit appeals presented beyond the period of limitation if they are satisfied that there was sufficient cause on the part of the appellant for not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation prescribed under the Act is framed in the context of appeals to the High Court under s. 260A.
The AO passed a block assessment order u/s 158BC by which he assessed the undisclosed income of the assessee at Rs. 24.37 L. Subsequently, he passed an order by which he added a further sum of Rs. 13.66 L to the said undisclosed income without issuing a notice u/s 148. The Tribunal allowed the appeal on the ground that the AO could not have made the addition without reopening the block assessment u/s 147.
This petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India registers a challenge to the order dated August 23, 2007, passed by the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), dismissing four appeals being
The circular, dated August 1, 2006, aforementioned, is binding on the department and this circular makes it more than abundantly clear that when a builder, promoter or developer undertakes construction activity for its own self, then, in such cases, in the absence of relationship of ‘service provider’ and ‘service recipient’, the question of providing ‘taxable service’ to any person by any other person does not arise at all.
