Whatever rights the assessee acquired in the said plot started from 1997, during which year the substantial payment for purchase consideration was also made. The said consideration was recognized in the later registered document, which established the case of assessee of having acquired the rights way back in 1997. Accordingly, the gains arising on transfer of development rights in the hands of assessee would be assessed as ‘long-term capital gains’.
CIT Vs Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (Bombay High Court) In the instant case Tribunal discussed the objects of the assessee i.e.,the respondent and returned a finding of fact that the entire objects are charitable in nature having regard to the meaning of the expression “Charitable purpose” as defined in the Act. Tribunal referred to […]
Assistant commissioner of CGST and Central excise Vs. M/s Sutherland global services (Madras High Court) Madras High Court Division Bench stays order of single judge in Matter relating to transition of education cess, secondary and higher education cess and krishi Kalyan cess into the Gst regime. FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT Mr.Raghavan […]
In the absence of any reasonable cause for failure of assessee in furnishing the information called for by the AO, penalty under section 271(1)(b) was rightly levied by AO for non-compliance of notice issued under section 142(1).
Star India (P) Ltd. Vs Society of Catalysts (Supreme Court) It is apparent that the crucial question to be determined in the instant case is whether an unfair trade practice has been committed by the Appellants in the conduct of the HSHS contest, in terms of Section 2(1)(r)(3) of the 1986 Act. We hasten to […]
It is a case where a vehicle alongwith goods were seized when it was found carrying goods in violation of the Act of 2017. The petitioner alongwith owner of the goods was served with the notice before seizure of the goods.
Revision under section 263 by PCIT was not justified as all the four issues questioned by PCIT were thoroughly examined by AO during the assessment proceedings, and after considering relevant facts and explanations furnished by assessee had chosen to accept the claim of the assessee and hence, the same could not be termed as non consideration of issues or AO had failed to carry out required enquiries, which ought to have been carried out in accordance with law. Thus, the assessment order passed by AO was neither erroneous, nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue
Star India (P) Ltd. Vs Society of Catalysts & Anr. (Supreme Court) Supreme Court dismissed a ruling of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) that had ordered Star India and Airtel to pay punitive damages over alleged unfair trade practices in collecting funds to build up the cash prize for the popular quiz programme, […]
The assessee is engaged in the business of quarrying, processing/selling exporting of a granite block and slabs.
Rajah Sir Annamalai Vs CCIT (Madras High Court) The fact that Clause 10 of the Trust Deed states that the fees and charges shall be fixed taking into account the cost of running including future development thereof though without an element of profit motive indicates that the actual intention of the trust is only to […]
