Income Tax : The issue is when High Courts can entertain appeals against ITAT orders. The key takeaway is that only debatable, material legal q...
Income Tax : Supreme Court disallows ₹10 crore bad debt deduction for Khyati Realtors Pvt Ltd, ruling it as capital expenditure, not eligible...
Income Tax : Explore remedies for taxpayers under the Income Tax Act, 1961, comparing appeals & revisions. Understand procedures, limitations &...
Income Tax : On commencement of regular assessment proceedings u/s 143(2) of Act , there is no need for intimation u/s 143(1)(a)(i) Where the s...
Income Tax : Substantial question of Law (SQL). On interpretation of section 260A of the Income Tax Act , 1961 and section 100 of the code of c...
Income Tax : The Gujarat High Court upheld deletion of an addition relating to alleged bogus capital gains. The Court found that shares held fo...
Income Tax : The Delhi High Court upheld deletion of additions after authorities under the Black Money Act concluded that the assessee was not ...
Income Tax : Tribunal could not recall and restore an appeal dismissed ex parte under Rule 24 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, when assessee filed mi...
Income Tax : The Karnataka High Court ruled that appellate authorities are empowered to entertain claims not made before the Assessing Officer....
Income Tax : The Bombay High Court held that a DVO reference under Section 55A was invalid because the assessee’s declared value was higher t...
DGFT : All conditions in policy circular no 15 of 1st February 2011 will continue to apply, except the specification about dates and the ...
PCIT Vs. Softbrands India P. Ltd (Karnataka High Court The existence of a substantial question of law is sine qua non for maintaining an appeal before the High Court. While the appeal to High Court under Section 260-A of the Act may be a First appeal in the sense from the order of final fact […]
Filing of appeal under Section 260A of the Act is a serious issue. The parties who seek to file such appeals must do so after due application of mind and not raise frivolous / concluded issues. This is certainly expected of the State.
C& C Construction Pvt Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)- Clause (a) of sub-Section (6) to Section 260A of the Act states that the High Court may decide an issue, which is not determined by the Appellate Tribunal. The word determined means that the issue is not dealt with, though it was raised before the Tribunal. The word determined presupposes an issue was raised or argued but there is failure of the Tribunal to decide or adjudicated the same. In a given case, a substantial question of law may arise because of the facts and findings recorded by the Tribunal, but the said issue/question is not determined. In such cases, an appeal under Section 260A of the Act can be entertained.
CIT v Ashok Kumar Arora (Delhi High Court) Whether the ITAT has erred in deleting the additions which were made by the AO based upon documents/evidence detected during the course of operations u/s 132 of the Act and which was confronted to the assessee by way of recording of statement under the provision of 132(4) of the Act and on the basis of confessional statement u/s 132(4) of the Act given by the assessee at the point of search especially in view of judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Ramdas Motor Transport (1999) 238 ITR 17
All conditions in policy circular no 15 of 1st February 2011 will continue to apply, except the specification about dates and the calendar given in Annexure 2 thereof since the allocation is being made today (10th March 2011 and not on 10th February 2011). Special attention be paid to para 3(iv) & (v).
The conclusion of the Tribunal to the effect that the assessee has failed to prove the source of the cash credits cannot be said to be perverse, giving rise to a substantial question of law. The Tribunal being a final fact finding authority, in the absence of demonstrated perversity in its finding, interference therewith by this Court is not warranted.
) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT was justified in treating the income from sale of 7,59,003 shares for Rs. 5,00,12,879/ as an income from short term capital gain and sale of 3,88,797 shares for rs . 6,65,02,340/ as long term capital gain as against the
A remedy by way of appeal from the orders of ITAT is provided both u/s.260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and u/s.15 (w.e.f. 6-1- 2006) of the N.T.T. Act, 2005. Although appeals from the orders of ITAT are supposed to be filed only in the National Tax Tribunal from 6-1-2006, yet appeals are being filed in the High Court for good reasons. Hence, wherever reference is made to N.T.T, it may be taken/understood that the date of filing the appeal would have to be on or after 6-1-2006.
