CIT Vs Ms Gopal Shri Scrips Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court) The short question, which arises for consideration in this appeal, is whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the Income Tax Department on the ground that it has rendered infructuous. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant (Income Tax […]
DCIT Vs M/S Shyam Sunder Khemka (ITAT Delhi) Assessee being a manufacturer substantial expansion was carried out in asst. yr. 2008-09 hence, initial assessment year would be refixed 2008-09 and assessee would be eligible to claim 100% deduction for next five assessment years and thereafter 25% for next 5 assessment years subject to restriction imposed […]
Where assessee-school had provided transport facility by charging separate fee, the transportation activity being incidental to achieve the main object of the assessee-trust, i.e., providing education could not be considered as business activity, so as to deny exemption under section 11 because the transport facility was not provided to outsiders and was confined only to the students and staff of the assessee.
Basic requirement of reopening of assessment is ‘reason to believe’ that the income has escaped assessment without which reopening under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 is is not sustainable
Sale of Agricultural Land by the assessee was not ‘adventure in the nature of trade’ and therefore, profit earned on such sales cannot be taxed as business income.
Vijayanagar Sugars Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs And Service Tax (CESTAT Bangalore) These applications of M/s Wellcast Steels Ltd, M/s Vijayanagar Sugars Pvt Ltd and of Shri R Rajendra Kumar under section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944, read with section 35C(2A) of Central Excise Act, 1944 and with rule 41 of […]
M. Sougoumarin Vs ACIT (Madras High Court) High Court held that there was no such reason for regular loan transactions of borrowing and repayment in cash of amounts exceeding Rs.20,000/- so as to escape penal liability under Sections 271E and 271D of the IT Act. FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGMENT These […]
Hallmark Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) During the adjudication proceedings appellants have contended that the said activities were undertaken before sale of land took place, hence the service was a self-service and there is no service provider and service recipient relationship and therefore they are not liable for […]
The channel of movement of the fund, the source of the fund, purpose of investment and the ultimate destination of the fund, were all part of the record during the assessment proceedings. There is nothing in the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer to suggest that, such investment is bogus.
Purviben Snehalbhai Panchhigar Vs ACIT (Gujarat High Court) In the present case the Assessing Officer has heard the material on record which would prima facie suggest that the assessee had sold number of shares of a company which was found to be indulging in providing bogus claim of long term and short term capital gain. […]
