Rajasthan High Court

Mere wrong claim of depreciation would not invite penalty U/s. 271(1)(c)

Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. Vs Asstt. CIT (Rajasthan High Court)

A mere making of a wrong, though bona fide claim of depreciation, which is not sustainable in law, by itself will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and therefore, such wrong claim will not automatically invite penalty under section 271(1)(c)....

Read More

Penalty cannot be imposed for mere disclosure of income due to search operation, instead of original return

Pr. CIT Vs Shanti Lal Jain (Rajasthan High Court)

Pr. CIT Vs Shanti Lal Jain (Rajasthan High Court) It is an admitted position that for the purpose of getting immunity from the penalty imposed under Clause 2 of explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, three conditions are required to be satisfied by the assessee. Firstly, if the assessee makes […]...

Read More

CESTAT is not proper Appellate Forum for Dispute of Rebate Claim

Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd. Vs Union of India (Rajasthan High Court)

That the present writ petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 1010.2017 (Annex.13) passed by the Respondent No.4, impugned Order-in-Original dated 31.3.2005 (Annex.9) and impugned order – in – Appeal dated. 12.8.2015 (Annex.10) may kindly be quashed and set aside...

Read More

Service Tax payable on Facilitation Fee Charged by RTDC

Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax Vs Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation Ltd (Rajasthan High Court)

The Revenue entertained a view that the amount received by the appellant in the name of facilitation fee, is commission from various shops and emporia for providing services of promoting or marketing or selling of goods provided or belonging to the emporia/shops, is liable to Service Tax under the category of ‘Business Auxiliary Service...

Read More

Tax on Remission of Principal amount of loan taken for capital investment

Pr. CIT Vs Modern Threads (I) Ltd. (Rajasthan High Court)

Pr. CIT Vs Modern Threads (I) Ltd. (Rajasthan High Court) High Court held that loan which was taken was capital investment and always treated in the capital account as liability and if it is so, it will naturally go as wiping out the capital liability. Income which could be taxed under section 28(iv) must not […]...

Read More

Exemption Can’t be denied for Mere Technical Mistake: Rajasthan High court

Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax Central Excise Vs Bhoorathanam Construction Co. (P) Ltd. (Rajasthan High Court)

In our considered opinion, the production is the same, manufacturing and the process is the same and excise duty is liable on the manufacturing, merely because in the certificate there is no mention of MS Special, the taxing statute will not be different. In view thereof, the view taken by the Tribunal is just and proper and no interfere...

Read More

Registration U/s. 12AA can’t be denied merely because Few Objects of Society are meant for benefit of Members

Commissioner of Income Tax-Exemption, Vs. Vyapar Sangh Court Road, Hanumangarh Junction

In this Income-tax Appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the appellant Income Tax Department, has challenged the order dated 24.05.2017 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in ITA No.336/Jodh/2016....

Read More

Section 54 not defines quantum of construction to be eligible for Exemption

Pr. CIT Vs Shri Prakash Chand Modi (Rajasthan High Court)

Section 54 no where defines the quantum of construction on the land so as to be eligible to be defined as a residential unit. The only condition is that there should be a residential house capable of being used as a residence by any person....

Read More

Unrecorded stock of rice noticed during survey taxable as Business Income

Pr. CIT Vs Bajargan Traders C/o. Kalani & Co. (Rajasthan High Court)

In case of assessee dealing in foodgrains, investment in unrecorded stock of rice noticed during the course of survey was to be taxed as business income and not as income from other sources as investment in procurement of such stock of rice was clearly identifiable and related to the regular business stock of the assessee....

Read More

Period of exclusion regarding direction U/s. 142(2A) commences from the day on which AO gave a direction

CIT Vs Amar Nath Arora (Rajasthan High Court)

(i) Whether the findings of the Tribunal are perverse in holding that for the purpose of limitation under section 158BE, the period is to be counted from the date on which the direction under section 142(2A) is served on the assessee and not from the date of issuance of direction by the assessing officer under section 142(2A) ?...

Read More
Page 1 of 812345...Last »

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (3,778)
Company Law (3,945)
Custom Duty (6,989)
DGFT (3,704)
Excise Duty (4,144)
Fema / RBI (3,494)
Finance (3,684)
Income Tax (27,614)
SEBI (2,916)
Service Tax (3,371)