From close scrutiny of Section 40(a)(i) of the Act, it is axiomatic that an amount payable towards interest, royalty, fee for technical services or other sums chargeable under this Act shall not be deducted while computing the income under the head profit and gain of business or profession on which tax is deductible at source; but such tax has not been deducted.
Personal hearing enables the authority concerned to watch the demeanour of the witnesses and clear up his doubts during the course of the arguments, and the party appearing to persuade the authority by reasoned argument to accept his point of view. If one person hears and another decides, then personal hearing becomes an empty formality. We therefore hold that the said procedure followed in this case also offends another basic principle of judicial procedure.
PCIT Vs Dr. Ranjan Pai (Karnataka High Court) The issue which arises for consideration in this appeal is ‘as to whether the fair market value of bonus shares computed as per Rule 11U and Rule 11U A of the Income Tax Rules can be considered as income from other sources as per Section 56(2)(vii) of […]
PCIT Vs Dr. Ranjan Pai (Karnataka High Court) The issue which arises for consideration in this appeal is ‘as to whether the fair market value of bonus shares computed as per Rule 11U and Rule 11U A of the Income Tax Rules can be considered as income from other sources as per Section 56(2)(vii) of […]
Katta Subramaniam Naidu Vs Deputy Director (Karnataka High Court) In this batch of petitions, petitioners have questioned the correctness and legality of the proceedings initiated against them under sections 3, 4 and 8(5) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short ‘PML Act’). 2. The common grievance of the petitioners is that they […]
Big Bags International (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT (Karnataka High Court) The assessee had exported bags to foreign customers in the past and had incurred unforeseen additional costs on certain imported raw material. In order to recover the additional costs incurred, the assessee had raised debit notes on the foreign customers and credited the amount due […]
Dyani Antony Paul Vs Union Of India (Karnataka High Court) The main object of PML Act is to ascertain the proceeds of crime which involved in money laundering and attachment, confirmation and confiscation of the proceeds of crime in the form of properties and also to punish the offenders of money laundering. The date of […]
Where AO did not record any satisfaction with regard to genuineness of the claim of the assessee before invoking the powers under section 14A read with rule 8D, disallowance was invalid because recording of satisfaction by AO is sine qua non for invocation of power under section 14A read with rule 8D
HC has quashed a notice and blocking of input tax credit under rule 86A whereby the credit was blocked for more than one year. Rule 86A does not empower the department to block the credit for more than one year and they are bound to unblock it even if the assessment has not taken place or got completed within one year.
The dispute in the present case lies within a narrow compass. It is undisputed that the petitioner ensured transportation of the vehicles under appropriate e-way bills that were valid from 31.12.2018 at 10.37 pm to 1.1.2019. The petitioner contends that the conveyance carrying the vehicles reached the place of destination on 1.1.2019 before the expiry of the validity of the e-way bills but the vehicles could not be unloaded on the same day and were being unloaded on 2.1.2019.
