Varshaben Sanatbhai Patel vs. ITO (Gujarat High Court) It is settled legal position as held by a catena of decisions that the substratum for formation of belief that income liable to tax has escaped assessment has to form part of the reasons recorded.
In the case of Devang Paper Mills Pvt Ltd Vs UOI, it was held that merely mentioning wrong code in the process, cannot result into such harsh consequence of the entire payment not being recognized as valid, incurring further liability of repayment of the basic duty with interest and penalties.
By this petition under article 226 of Constitution of India petitioners sought relief by way of writ and prayed before court that due date of filing ITR should be extended upto 30.11.2015. Following relief were sought in this instant writ petition
After Punjab & Haryana High Court the Gujarat High Court also directs CBDT to extend the due date for Filing of ITR to October 31st in its Judgement today.
Issue- Whether the insertion of sub clause (iv) in Section 80-IB(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 conferring the benefit of the deduction under this Section to undertakings engaged in commercial production of natural gas in blocks licensed under VIIIth round of bidding provided
The question which is posed for consideration is whether for considering the long term capital gain Cost Inflation Index is required to be considered at the date on which the property was inherited in the name of the assessee or as per the previous cost of acquisition at which previous owner had acquired the capital asset.
Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that depreciation not claimed for by the assessee, cannot be allowed as a deduction despite the introduction of the concept of block assets. Depreciation is optional to the assessee and once he chooses not to claim it, the Assessing Officer cannot allow it while computing the income. Further, once the depreciation is option, applying the same ratio of Gujarat High Court and other Courts, it will be optional for block of assets also.
Can SEZ unit claim exemption from CVD when cleared to DTA based on an Exemption Notification issued under Section 5A of CEA’1944 although when there is specific bar under Section 5A for SEZ units?
On Appeal Honourable high court has held that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. T.A. Quereshi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bhopal reported in 287 Income Tax Reports 547, the loss which was incurred during the course of business even if the same is illegal is required to be compensated and for the loss suffered by the assessee.
We could notice from the record that the assessee was having share holding funds to the extent of 2607.18 crores and the investment made by it was to the extent of Rs. 195.10 crores. In other words, the assessee had sufficient funds for making the investments and it has not used the borrowed
