Manoj Aggarwal vs. DCIT – (1) Even in the case of an assessee not maintaining books of account and to whom s. 68 does not apply, addition in respect of unexplained entries in the bank book can be made; (2) Where the assessee was not provided copies of the seized documents and the delay in filing the block return was on that count, interest u/s 158BFA (1) is not leviable even though there is no exemption on that count in the statute.;
Jashan Textile Mills vs. DCIT – In ACIT vs. Rogini Garments 108 ITD 49, the Chennai Special Bench of the ITAT held that in view of s. 80-IA (9), relief under s. 80-IA had to be deducted from the profits and gains before computing relief u/s 80-HHC. M/s SCM Creations was an intervener in that case and a common judgement was passed.
Faqir Chand Gulati vs. Uppal (Supreme Court) – (i) A development agreement is one where the land-holder provides the land. The Builder puts up a building. Thereafter, the land owner and builder share the constructed area. The builder delivers the `owner’s share’ to the land-holder and retains the `builder’s share’. The land-holder sells/transfers undivided share/s in the land corresponding to the Builder’s share of the building to the builder or his nominees. The land-holder will have no say or control in the construction or have any say as to whom and at what cost the builder’s share of apartments are to be dealt with or disposed of. Such an agreement is not a joint venture in the legal sense. It is a contract for services.
U/s 245A(b), as amended by the Finance Act 2007 w.e.f. 1.6.2007, pendency of proceedings for assessment before the AO for one or more assessment years is a necessary condition for invoking the jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission. Held in that context by Five Member Bench of the ITSC that: (a) For the year for which returns have been filed but have neither been processed u/s 143(1) of the Act nor notices have been issue u/s. 143(2) of the Act, the proceeding for assessment can be said to be pending
Gangadharan vs. CIT (Supreme Court) Held, by 3 judge Bench, resolving conflict of opinion amongst other benches of the SC, that: (1) merely because in some cases the revenue has not preferred appeal that does not operate as a bar for the revenue to prefer an appeal in another case where there is just cause for doing so or it is in public interest to do so or for a pronouncement by the higher Court when divergent views are expressed by the Tribunals or the High Courts.
Companies and individuals who do not reveal their Permanent Account Number (PAN) while receiving income from any source will be liable to pay tax deducted at source (TDS) at the maximum marginal rate of 30 per cent (plus surcharge and education cess). Under the Income Tax Act, 1961, any income payable to the assessee is liable for TDS by the person or entity making the payment. TDS rate ranges from 1 per cent to 30 per cent depending on the nature of income. The Central Board of Direct Taxes is considering changes to the Act to this effect.
Where the High Court dismissed the appeals filed against a PSU on the ground that an application for permission of the COD had not been obtained within the period of 30 days as laid down in ONGC’s case, held that there was actually no rigid time frame indicated by the Supreme Court. The emphasis on one month’s time was to show urgency needed.
Where the Appellate Commissioner disposed of the appeal by a non-reasoned order, held that a statutory appeal could not be disposed of in that manner. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same it becomes lifeless.
Where the High Court was satisfied that the assessment order had been back-dated and directed that a fresh order be passed by a different AO and the assessee filed an appeal arguing that the assessment proceedings should have been declared null and void,
The petitioners, is a private limited company, engaged in the business of development and sale of immovable property, i.e., real estate, have impugned a notice, dated March 6, 2006 issued by respondent Superintendent of Central Excise, whereby the petitioner-company has been asked to get itself registered under section 69 of the Finance Act, 1994 inasmuch as the petitioner-company has been providing commercial or industrial construction service/construction of complex service.
