Judiciary’s Popular Posts

Judiciary

Embezzlement Loss due to Fund Siphoning by Employees is Business Loss

ACIT Vs M/s. Haldyan Glass Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)

This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -17, Mumbai dated 29.01.2015 for the Assessment Year 2010-11....

Read More

Palpable lack of communication/ internal co-ordination within Income Tax Settlement Commission: CIC

Chairman, Income Tax Settlement Commission Vs Mr. R K Jain (Central Information Commission)

The Commission however felt that there was palpable lack of communication/ internal co-ordination within the Public Authority that needs to be revisited and strengthened within the Public Authority itself....

Read More

Discount not claimed in commutation of income cannot be disallowed U/s. 40(a)(ia)

Goutam Das Judge Vs. ITO (ITAT Kolkata)

Where the impugned amount is not claimed by the assessee by way of deduction under sections 30 to 38 of the Act while computing the income of the assessee under the head Profits and gains of business or profession the question of making any dis allowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act will not arise...

Read More

Bad debts not allowable if same was not part of income in earlier previous year

CIT Vs. Escotrac Finance & Investments Ltd. (Delhi High Court)

A debt means something more than a mere advance. It means something which is related to business or results from it. To be claimable as a bad or doubtful debt it must first be shown as a proper debt...

Read More

Merit not required to be considered in compounding application; Compounding can be rejected for repeat of offence

Vinubhai Mohanlal Dobaria Vs Chief CIT (Gujarat High Court)

Ptitioner has vehemently submitted that in present case compounding application of the petitioner has been rejected solely on the ground that it is not the first offence of petitioner....

Read More

Deduction U/s. 54 allowable on sale consideration invested one year before sale of property

Devichand Kanthilal Shah Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai)Devichand Kanthilal Shah Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai); IT Appeal No. 3353 (Mds.) of 2016; 31/05/2017; 2013-14

In this case, the investment was admittedly made one year before the date of sale of property. In view of language employed by Parliament in section 54 of the Act, it is not the requirement that the sale consideration has to be invested in purchase of property....

Read More

S. 254(2) Limitation period reduction not applicable to appellate orders passed prior to 01.06.2016

District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd., Raisen Vs Union of India (Madhya Pradesh High Court)

The undisputed fact reveals that at the time an ex-parte order was passed in assessee's main appeal, the limitation prescribed under Section 254(2) was four years and the assessee was under an expression as the limitation is four years his application under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was within limitation. ...

Read More

Interest u/s 234A/ 234B cannot be levied in absence of any mention in Assessment Order

Income Tax Officer Vs. M/s. Heritage Project (ITAT Amritsar)

In the absence of any specific mention of the Assessing Officer in the assessment order for charging of interest u/s 234A and 234B, no interest would be recovered from the assessee merely by way of a demand notice....

Read More

S. 271B No penalty Failure to get accounts audited for Bona fide belief that assessee not liable to get audited

Manoj S. Gugale Vs. ITO (ITAT Pune)

The issue is with respect to levy of penalty under section 271B of the Act. It is an undisputed fact that assessee is engaged in the business of Advertising Agency and during the year under consideration the commission earned from the Advertising Agency was not in excess of the limits prescribed under section 44AB for the purpose of getti...

Read More

No penalty for Bona fide belief that capital loss was not required to be considered U/s. 10(38)

DIT Vs. Nomura India Investment Fund (Bombay High Court)

DIT Vs. Nomura India Investment Fund (Bombay High Court) Provisions of section 271(1)(c) can only be invoked upon satisfaction of the ingredients as laid down in the said section. In the present case, it appears that the assessee had disclosed in its return the loss of Rs. 80.64 Crores sustained by him and further in the return, note was ...

Read More
Page 1 of 99912345...102030...Last »

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (3,505)
Company Law (3,438)
Custom Duty (6,634)
DGFT (3,474)
Excise Duty (4,049)
Fema / RBI (3,276)
Finance (3,475)
Income Tax (25,158)
SEBI (2,753)
Service Tax (3,286)