Knorr-Bremse India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (P&H HC) A reading of the orders of the TPO, the DRP and of the Tribunal makes it clear that one of the main reasons for not accepting the assessee’s case was that the assessee had not been able to substantiate that the payment for the services had actually increased its profits.
CIT Vs. Shri Kapil Kumar Agarwal (P&H High Court) -The issue that arises for consideration relates to whether the assessee in order to avail benefit of Section 54F of the Act is required to utilize the amount for the purchase of the new asset from the sale proceeds of the original capital asset only.
The Hon’ble (P&H) High Court in the case of Pr.C.I.T. vs ITAT Delhi Bench, New Delhi and anothers while dealing with the scope of power of Tribunal for grant of stay against the prosecution proceedings held that once
In the case of Vishal Garg & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr., Punjab & Haryana HC instructed CBDT extend due date of Tax Audit cases to 31st October 2015 from existing 30th September 2015. Its not clear if the due date for non audit cases also been extended
A perusal of this order reveals that the Tribunal has recorded a finding that it is empowered by Section 254 of the Act to stay prosecution. The said finding is the bone of contention between the parties. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench (Punjab & Haryana HIgh Court at Chandigarh),
The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of M/s Council for Citrus and Agri Juicing in Punjab Vs. CIT(TDS) held that the money lent by the public sector undertaking from the corpus fund created out of govt. sanctioned funds could not be deemed as loans advanced by the govt.
Vishal Garg Vs. UOI In the instant petition petitioners sought relief by way of writ under article 227 of the constitution of India and prayed before court that due date of filing ITR should be extended upto 31.10.2015.
Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Vikrant Dutt Chaudhary Vs. CIT held that photocopy of a document will always constitute relevant “material” for the purpose of assessment because the very use of word material in sec 143(3) clearly shows that the AO is not bound by the technical rules of evidence
Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of B.M.J Real Estate P. Limited held that where the consideration received or accrued as a result of transfer of capital asset being the land or building is less than the value adopted or assessed by the stamp valuation authorities
The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryan High Court in the case of Shri Krishan Gopal HUF held that the levy of interest u/s 234A , B & C is part and parcel of the of assessment process and it is open to an assessee to dispute the levy in appeal provided he challenge the very levy rather than claiming any waiver
