CIT Versus Baba Deep Singh Educational Society (P & H High Court)- Jurisdiction of the Commissioner at the stage of processing application under Section 12AA of the Act is limited regarding whether the activities are genuine and in consonance with the objects of the trust or institution and where education is being imparted as per the rules and the factum of the establishment and running of schools is not disputed the same was a genuine activity and the enquiry regarding genuineness of the activities cannot be stretched beyond this.
Sood Bhandari & Co. Vs. CBDT (P & H HC)- Section 40(b)(ii ) contemplates the authorization of remuneration or interest. The authorization does not mean an agreement to pay, but to quantify the amount of salary or the rate of interest payable to the partners. If the said aspects are not determined prior to the financial year, the same are capable of adjustment at the end of the financial year keeping in view the profits earned with a view to increase expenditure and reduce income.
Read the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision in CIT vs. Ms. Jagriti Aggarwal on Section 54 claim under the Income Tax Act. Legal insights provided.
V.R.A. Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. UOI (P & H HC)- The date of receipt of notice by the addressee is not relevant to determine, as to whether the notice has been issued within the prescribed period of limitation. The expression serve means the date of issue of notice. The date of receipt of notice cannot be left to be undetermined dependent upon the will of the addressee. Therefore, to bring certainly and to avoid attempts of the addressee to evade the process of receipt of notice, the purpose of the statute will be better served, if the date of issue of notice is considered as compliance of the requirement of proviso to Section 143(2) of the Act. In fact that is the only conclusion that can be arrived at to the expression ‘serve’ appearing in Section 143(2) of the Act.
ITA No.174 of 2011 has been preferred by the assessee under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of ITAT Delhi “C” Bench in ITA No. 2656/Delhi/2008 dated 10.7.2009 for the assessment year 2002-03 raising following substantial questions of law
Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Vs M/s H.M.T. Ltd. (Punjab & Haryana High Court)- There is no specific provision prescribing any limitation for passing the order under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act.
Depreciation on the capital assets was allowable even when capital expenditure on the acquisition of the corresponding assets had already been allowed as ‘application of income’for the purpose of allowing the exemption under s 11.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that even if the duty has been paid in excess of the amount finally held to be payable, unless the excess duty paid has been refunded, the assessee could claim cenvat credit as the department could not get the duty twice.
CIT Vs Quark Systems India (P) Ltd. (Punjab and Haryana High Court)- The Tribunal, while entertaining the additional ground raised by the assessee for the exclusion of a comparable, remanded the matter to the AO allowing an opportunity to the assessee to produce material before the AO for determination of the ALP, and after the remand and consideration of the material produced by the assessee in terms of the order of the Tribunal, an order in favour of the assessee has been passed.
Whether a person who is not actual service provider, but discharges the Service tax liability on the Taxable Services, under Section 68(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, as a deemed service provider, is entitled to avail the Cenvat Credit on inputs/inputs services/Capital Goods for payment of GTA Services tax, even if he is not using such inputs/input services/capital goods for providing taxable services? Counsel for the revenue fairly states that the matter is covered against the revenue by order of this Court dated 6.5.2010 in CEA No.99 of 2008 CCE v. M/s Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd . etc . Appeal Dismissed
