Civil – Specific performance – Validity of – Stamp paper – Opinion of experts – Section 54 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 – Indian Stamp Rules, 1925 – Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Plaintiff-Appellant alleged that the First Defendant agreed to sell suit property by an agreement and received some amount as advance – Plaintiff issued a notice to execute the sale deed and receive the balance amount – Defendant denied the agreement and executed the sale deed in favour of Second Defendant – Plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance – Defendant contended that the sale agreement put forth by the Plaintiff was forged and concocted – Trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the sale put forth by Plaintiff was false –
Discover the legal nuances in the Supreme Court judgment (Civil Appeal 582/2008) involving M/s Anis Ahmad and Sons versus Commissioner of Income Tax. Uncover the intricacies of the case where the appellant, a Commission Agent, challenges the classification as a ‘Trader.’ The court emphasizes that no adverse inference should be drawn due to non-appearance of certain traders and affirms the appellant’s role as an ‘Arhatiya’ (Commission Agent). Explore the details of the case and the court’s decision dated 22/01/2008.
Commissioner of Income Central vs Suresh N. Gupta On 17.1.2001 a search under Section 132 of the 1961 Act was carried out at the premises of the respondent-assessee , an individual. The search unearthed an unexplained investment of Rs. 65,000/- being the value of household valuables and Rs. 97,427/- on account of unexplained marriage expenses (undisclosed income). Accordingly, in the block assessment, the A.O. determined the assessee’s undisclosed income at Rs. 1,62,427/-. He computed tax thereon at 60% in terms of Section 113 of the 1961 Act amounting to Rs. 97,456/- on which surcharge was levied at 17%, i.e., Rs. 16,504/-. The levy of surcharge was challenged by the assessee in appeal before the CIT(A). The said appeal was allowed. The decision of CIT(A) has been confirmed by the Tribunal and the High Court. Hence, this civil appeal.
Applications for compounding ought to be disallowed if there are such contradictions, inconsistencies or incompleteness. The reason is obvious. If the applicant is trying to hoodwink the Authority such applications would not be maintainable. That aspect is required to be kept in mind by the Compounding Authority. The test is as follows :
IN a remarkably interesting ruling, involving the IT giant Infosys Technologies, the Apex Court has held that every benefit received by a person is not taxable as income unless the Legislature makes the same taxable. For period prior to 2000, there were no provisions in the Income Tax Act to tax ESOPs. As regards the TDS, it noted that ESOPs were not taxable during the lock-in period as the value of non-transferable shares (perquisite) was not ascertainable. As regards the Clause (iiia) of Sec 17 the SC held that it was not clarificatory as argued by the Revenue and very much prospective if one goes by the wordings used in the Clause and the explanatory memorandum of the Finance Act, 1999.
Explore the intricacies of Section 263 under the Income Tax Act with the Supreme Court’s perspective in Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs. Max India Limited (2007) 295 ITR 282. The retrospective amendment in 2005, addressing the complexities of Section 80HHC, does not trigger Section 263. The court emphasizes the existence of two plausible views on ‘profits’ at the time of the Commissioner’s order in 1997. Uncover the nuanced interpretation of ‘prejudicial to the interests of the revenue’ and the significance of the 2005 amendment in this insightful judgment.
Commissioner of Income-tax v. Catapharma (India) (P.) Ltd.- Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Deductions – Exporters – Assessment year 1997-98 – Whether excise duty and sales tax form part of total turnover while computing deduction under section 80HHC – Held, no.
Section 1 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 – Applicability of Act – Whether co-operative banks established under Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 and Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002, transacting business of banking, do not fall within meaning of ‘banking company’ as defined in section 5(c) of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and, therefore, provisions of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, by invoking doctrine of incorporation, are not applicable to recovery of dues by such co-operative banks from their members – Held, yes
1. These appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” hereinafter referred to as), are filed against the common order dated December 31, 2001, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in three batches of appeals relating to orders under Sections 201(1), 201(1A) and 271C relating to the assessment years 1992-93 to 1996-97.
Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji—hereinafter called the respondent—was a trader in Malabar produce, cloth, pepper and other commodities. For the assessment year 1945-46, the respondent submitted a return disclosing a net business loss of Rs. 7,960. The Income-tax Officer, Kozhikode, District Malabar, completed the assessment on March 29, 1946,
