Delhi High Court held that Larger Bench of Delhi High Court will decide the whether provisions of section 149(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act inserted by virtue of the Finance Act, 2012 will be applicable retrospectively in concluded assessment.
ITAT Jaipur held that addition under section 68 towards cash deposit in bank as unexplained cannot be sustained since source of cash deposited duly explained. Accordingly, addition of around Rs. 8.60 Crores deleted.
Delhi High Court held that IT/ITeS would fall within the definition of ‘Industrial Building’ as envisaged under Bye-law 9(e) of DMC Property Tax bye-law 2004 and therefore, demand of property tax rightly set aside.
Madras High Court held that block assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 158BC of the Income Tax Act has been passed within the period prescribed u/s. 158BE(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act and hence not barred by limitation.
NCLAT Delhi held that where Notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 makes a demand as per the Guarantee Agreement between the parties, the Notice has to be treated as notice for invocation of Personal Guarantee.
ITAT Raipur held that assessment framed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act by Additional CIT in absence of order under section 127 and order under section 120(4)(b) is invalid as without having valid assumption of jurisdiction.
ITAT Hyderabad directs AO to reassess Satyam Computer Services [Now, Tech Mahindra Limited] for the Assessment Year 2003-2004 to 2008-2009 in light of the judgement of Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.
ITAT Mumbai held that interest on advance given to entity how became Non Performing Asset (NPA) cannot be brought to tax since the income is really not accrued to the assessee. Accordingly, addition is rightly deleted by CIT(A).
Calcutta High Court held that reopening of assessment u/s. 147 for claim of bogus capital gain sustained fundamentals of company are very weak and abnormal price rise in share is artificially manipulated.
The present petition is filed assailing the Communication dated 03 February 2014 issued by the Respondent No. 3 rejecting the Petitioner’s Application dated 15 December 2011 for seeking amendments of the earlier granted approval dated 17.11.2006.
