Claim for deduction under section 35(2AB) could not be defeated on the ground that approval from prescribed authority was granted in the year subsequent to the financial year in which the expenditure was incurred.
Hitech Outsourcing Services Vs CIT (Gujarat High Court) We have noticed that the Assessing Officer in teh original assessment proceedings had examined the assessee’s claim of deduction under section 10B of the Act. It is not as if such claim went unnoticed or unscrutinized. He wanted to be specific about the assessee’s claim for deduction […]
Whether the petitioner is correct in contending that he had already suffered the deduction of tax, the mere fact that the deductee did not deposit such tax with the Government revenue could not permit the Income tax Department to recover such amount from the petitioner.
M/s. Supernova System Private Limited Vs. CCIT (Gujarat High Court) CBDT circular issued on 23.12.2014 prescribes compounding fees for offense under section 276C(1) at 100% of the amount sought to be evaded. This para also starts with an expression ‘Section 276C(1)- Wilful attempt to evade tax etc.’ The title of this para thus, is taken […]
Mumtaz Haji Mohmad Memon Vs ITO (Gujarat High Court) The Assessing Officer may be correct in pointing out that when the sale consideration as per the sale deed is Rs.50 lakhs but the registering authority has valued the property on the date of sale at Rs.1,18,95,000/- for stamp duty calculation, section 50C of the Act […]
Sitaram Ramchanddas Patel Vs ITO (Gujarat High Court) When the assessee failed to prove the capacity of the concerned persons who alleged to have given the unsecured loan and/or gift, it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal has committed any error in confirming the additions made by the Assessing officer and confirmed by the […]
Where assessee utilized only a small part of eligilble FSI remaining part was sold, then assessee was not entitled deduction under section 80IB. In respect profits assessee for sale of unutilized part.
PCIT Vs JP Infrastructure (P) Ltd. (Gujarat High Court) During the original assessment, both the questions raised by AO in reassessment notice, were already examined by AO through a specific queries raised in this respect. Therefore, reassessment being based on mere change of opinion was invalid. FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGMENT […]
we would permit the petitioner to carry on the legitimate business by suspending provisional attachments subject to fulfillment of following conditions: (i) The petitioner creates an undertaking to maintain a stock of the goods of a minimum of Rs. 5 crores. Such undertaking shall be filed before the department as well as before this Court by 15.11.2018;
Gujarat High Court granted stay on conducting audit of records of taxpayers under 5A of Service Tax Rules, 1994, by Officers of C&AG who were sending communications through CGST officers.
