Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Jammu & Kashmir HC

Prosecution u/s 276C/277: Burden of proving absence of mens rea is upon accused

September 28, 2018 7905 Views 0 comment Print

Arun Arya Vs. ITO (J&K High Court) Under the Income-Tax Act, 1961 there are various provisions for compliance with taxing provisions and the collection of taxes. The Income-tax Act seeks to enforce tax compliance in a three fold manner; namely 1) Imposition of interests 2) Imposition of penalties and 3) Prosecutions. In the fight against […]

Section 10 (23C) (iiiad) Total annual receipts of each institution should be taken separately for the benefit of tax exemption

December 29, 2017 26910 Views 0 comment Print

M/s. Vivekanand Society of Education and Research Vs CIT (Jammu & Kashmir High Court) Where there are more than one such institutions, which are under a particular society or trust, such as the assessee society in the present case, the aggregate annual receipts of each of the educational institutions would have to be considered separately […]

Gold converted in jewelery/ ornament eligible for deduction U/s. 80-IB

August 10, 2017 1677 Views 0 comment Print

Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition made by the assessing officer by dis-allowing the deduction claimed under section 80-IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961

Interest Income not eligible for deduction u/s. 80IB

January 1, 2013 2692 Views 0 comment Print

A bare look at section 80-IB(4) would reveal that reference made to ‘profits and gains derived from such industrial undertakings’ and not to ‘profit and gains derived from any business of the industrial undertaking’. A conjoint reading of Section 80-IB(l) and 80-IB(4) would reveal that the expression ‘profits and gains derived from any business’ is to be read as ‘profits and gains derived from the industrial undertaking’

Excise Duty Refund under subsidy scheme is capital receipt and not taxable

January 31, 2011 4115 Views 0 comment Print

M/s Shree Balaji Alloys vs. CIT (J&K High Court)- The finding of the Tribunal on the first issue that the Excise Duty Refund, Interest Subsidy and Insurance Subsidy were Production Incentives, hence Revenue Receipt, cannot be sustained, being against the law laid down by Honble Supreme Court of India in Sahney Steel and Ponni Sugars cases (supra). The finding of the Tribunal that the incentives were Revenue Receipt is, accordingly, set aside holding the incentives to be Capital Receipt in the hands of the assesses.

Section 260A authorizes the High Court to hear an appeal only when substantial question of law is involved

August 31, 2009 720 Views 0 comment Print

It is settled position of law that appeal is creature of Statute and appeal can be filed only when permitted by Statute and can be filed on the grounds mentioned In the Statute. In terms of section 260-A the High Court gets power to hear and decide an appeal only when a substantial question of law is involved. The section 260-A of the Act of 1961 thus, authorizes the High Court to hear an appeal only when substantial question of law is involved.

Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031