Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Rajasthan High Court

No Exemption U/s. 10(37) if no agricultural activity during last two years prior to date of acquisition of agricultural land

March 9, 2018 11583 Views 0 comment Print

Ajesh Kumar Agrawal Vs. CIT (Rajasthan High Court) What is to be considered is that for being granted benefit under sub-section (37) of section 10 of the Act, the land in question should have been put to agricultural use by the assessee for the preceding two years. Even if we accept the contention of the […]

Service Tax payable on Facilitation Fee Charged by RTDC

February 28, 2018 3348 Views 0 comment Print

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’ in terms of clause 19(i) of Section 65 of Finance Act, 1994.

Exemption U/s. 54B for investment / document Registration in spouse name allowable

February 26, 2018 17577 Views 0 comment Print

In all these appeals common question of law and facts are involved hence they are decided by this common judgment.

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

February 2, 2018 1551 Views 0 comment Print

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 […]

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

January 16, 2018 1521 Views 0 comment Print

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 […]

VAT reimbursement: Whether capital receipt or revenue receipt?

January 2, 2018 2940 Views 0 comment Print

PCIT Vs Deepak Vegpro (P) Ltd. (Rajasthan High Court) Finance Act, 2015 with effect from 1-4-2016, has enlarged the definition of income given under section 2 (24) by inserting sub-clause (xviii), which reads as under :– (xviii) assistance in the form of a subsidy or grant or cash incentive or duty drawback or waiver or […]

Sec 54B exemption cannot be denied for Investment made in Spouse name

December 8, 2017 3420 Views 0 comment Print

On the ground of investment made by the assessee in the name of his wife, in view of the decision of Delhi High Court in Sunbeam Auto Ltd. and other judgments of different High Courts,the word used is assessee has to invest it is not specified that it is to be in the name of assessee.

CBDT Circular prescribing Monetary Limit for filing Appeal has Retrospective Effect

October 31, 2017 10773 Views 0 comment Print

CIT Vs. M/s Gillette India Ltd. (Rajasthan High Court) Instant appeal is directed against order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and indisputably the tax effect as brought to our notice, is less than Rs. 20 lac. A Circular No. 21/2015 has been issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated 10.12.2015 in exercise […]

Second notice U/S. 148 during pendency of appeal against first notice is invalid

October 25, 2017 3696 Views 0 comment Print

Pushpa Rajawat Vs CIT (Rajasthan High Court) Since, the original proceedings were pending before the Commissioner (Appeals), without entering into the question of jurisdiction of the Sawaimadhopur assessing officer, the fact remains that the adjudicating authority could not have issued second show cause notice under section 148. In that view of the matter, without entering […]

Depreciation on public roads is allowable @10%

October 10, 2017 3912 Views 0 comment Print

Depreciation was allowable @10% on public highway road treating the same as building. It was held assessee was granted license for construction against which it had right to use and collect license fee to use of the land. It had right to restrict the people without non payment of toll tax. It was not only road, they had to construct toll booth and provide facilities for the staff for the purpose of their accommodation.

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
February 2025
M T W T F S S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
2425262728