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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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.
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 […]
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 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.
As purchase of inventory is continuation of same business activity, the, proviso to section 36(1)(iii)(d) did not get attracted in case assessee having borrowed funds to purchase inventory, therefore, assessee was duly entitled to claim deduction under section 36(1)(iii).
माननीय राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय की डिवीज़न बेंच के न्यायाधीशगण जस्टिस श्री के. एस झवेरी व जस्टिस श्री विजय कुमार व्यास द्वारा Rajasthan Tax Consultants Association vs. Union of India & Ors. [D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15239/2017] के मामले में याचिकाकर्ता एसोसिएशन द्वारा दायर की गई रिट की सुनवाई की गई जिसमे जीएसटीएन पोर्टल में […]
Looking to the averments which are made in the petition and the reply which has been filed, it appears that the system is not working upto the level and the same is required to be corrected & updated to meet requirements.
