2. This civil appeal filed by the assessee is directed against judgment and order dated 22.9.2006 in ITA No. 164/04 by the Delhi High Court. By the impugned judgment, confirming the decision of the Tribunal, the High Court has held that the appellant (assessee) is not entitled to claim depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“1961 Act” for short) in respect of two separate transactions
With a view to arrive at a finding as regards the voluntary nature of statement or otherwise of a confession which has since been retracted, the Court must bear in mind the attending circumstances which would include the time of retraction, the nature thereof, the manner in which such retraction has been made and other relevant factors. Law does not say that the accused has to prove that retraction of confession made by him was because of threat, coercion, etc. but the requirement is that it may appear to the court as such.
Where the assessee-employer allowed the employees the benefit of deduction under section 10 (5) of the Act without collecting evidence to show that its employees had actually utilized the amounts paid towards Leave Travel Concessions/Conveyance Allowance and the question arose whether the employer could be said to have wrongly allowed the deduction, HELD:
It may be noted that the beneficiary of exemption under Section 10(5) is an individual employee. There is no circular of Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) requiring the employer under Section 192 to collect and examine the supporting evidence to the Declaration to be submitted by an employee(s). For the above reasons there is no merit in the Civil Appeals and the same are dismissed with no order as to costs.
THE Supreme Court today simply dismissed the much-hyped USD two billion Vodafone capital gains tax case at the admission stage itself. Before rejecting the SLP, the Bench asked the assesee – why did they not furnish the copy of their original agreement to the Court and also to the Revenue? In reply the assessee spoke about their delayed offer and promised to make the same available any time.
A short question which arises for determination in this Special Leave Petition is: whether the High Court was entitled to condone the delay of 16 days in filing the Reference Application by the Commissioner under Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944?
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the present appellant. The appeal was filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act). The question relates to the effect of Section 43A of the Act.
India Cine Agencies Vs CIT, Madras Income tax – Sec 32AB benefits – assessee converts jumbo rolls of photographic films into small rolls of various sizes – claims Sec 32AB, Sec 80HH and Sec 80I benefits – AO says it is neither manufacture nor production
Explore the Supreme Court judgment on Corporation Bank vs. Saraswati Abharansala regarding excess Sales Tax collection. Learn how the retrospective effect of a notification led to a rate reduction, compelling the state to refund the excess amount. Discover the legal implications, the court’s interpretation, and the directive for the state to refund the tax with interest. Stay informed about key legal precedents and the principles of statutory construction.
Haleema Zubair, Tropical Traders Vs. State of Kerala (Supreme Court of India)- The business activities relating to transaction of M/s. Poseidon Food Company unless otherwise proved cannot bring the appellant within the purview of definition of `dealer’. If she was not a dealer, the professional fees earned by her would not be exigible to payment of sales tax; only because the appellant happens to be the proprietress of M/s. Tropical Traders also.
