the assessee advanced interest free loan to its sister concern amounting to Rs.5 lacs. According to the Tribunal, there was nothing on record to show that the loans were given to the sister concern by the assessee-firm out of its Own Funds and, therefore, it was not entitled to claim deduction under Section 36(1)(iii). Munjal Sales Corporation Vs.CIT (Supreme Court)
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 –
Section 2(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Agricultural income Assessment years 1988-89 and 1990-91- Whether sale proceeds of plants raised in nursery on land belonging to assessee constitutes income from agriculture – Held, yes . Commissioner of Income-tax, Meerut v. Green Gold Tree Farmers (P.) Ltd.
CIT v. Marubeni India (P.) Ltd. In case where the present employer did not include salary paid by the previous employer u/s 192(2), because previous employer did not provide the details of disbursement, issue arose whether such present employer is liable for penal interest. It was held by HC that the liability of the present employer is limited only to the extent of details furnished by the employee with reference to his previous employment. In other words the present employer’s obligation of TDS will be restricted to the disbursements made by himself and also on the income earned in a previous employment if such details are furnished to him by the employee.
In our view, once all the material was before the AO and he chose not to deal with the several contentions raised by the petitioner in his final assessment order, it cannot be said that he had not applied his mind when all material was placed by the petitioner before him.
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.
There is no doubt that the non-compete agreement incorporates a restrictive covenant on the right of the Assessee to carry on his activity of development of software. It may not alter the structure of his activity, in the sense that he could carry on the same activity in an organization in which he had a small stake, but it certainly impairs the carrying on of his activity. To that extent it is a loss of a source of income for him and it is of an enduring nature, as contrasted with a transitory or ephemeral loss.
CIT vs Best Plastics (P) Ltd. The Commissioner of Income-tax and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal have both relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. [2004] 267 ITR 272 to have that the circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) binding on the officers of the Income-tax Department. To the same effect is the decision of the Supreme Court in UCO Bank v. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 889.
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.
CIT vs Dharmendra Sharma – This decision was taken in appeal before the Supreme Court and by an order dt. 7th March, 2007 [reported as CIT vs. Vinay Cement Ltd. (2007) 213 CTR (SC) 268—Ed.], the Supreme Court observed that it was concerned with the law as it stood prior to the amendment of s. 43B of the Act. The assessee was entitled to claim the benefit provided under s. 43B of the Act for that period particularly in view of the fact that he had contributed to provident fund before filing the return. Accordingly, the SLP filed by the Revenue against the decision of Gauhati High Court was dismissed.
