ACIT Vs. Shri Dilip Ranjrekar (ITAT Banaglore) It is apparent from the facts of the case as mentioned (along with copies of corroborative documentary evidence) and discussed above from para 7.1 to 4.4.3 of this order (Supra) that the non completion of the construction the flat by the builder within the stipulated period is beyond […]
Maharastra Film Cultural Development Corporation Ltd. Vs JCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Oxford University Press (108 ITR 166) has expounded that the test for judging the nature of capital or revenue expenditure is to see whether as a result of expenditure what is being done is to […]
Where AO had failed to issue notice under section 143(2) before completion of assessment, addition made under section 68 during reassessment proceedings was deleted because issuance of notice under section 143(2) is a mandatory obligation on the part of AO.
PR. CIT Vs Green Delhi BSQ Ltd. (Delhi High Court) The respondent-assessee was to construct, operate and maintain bus shelters. The respondent-assessee was also under an obligation to pay Rs.4.09 crores per month to the Delhi Transport Corporation. The shelters were not owned by the respondent-assessee. The Central Board of Direct Taxes vide Circular No. […]
Rudraksha Agencies Co. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Once it is found that assessment is framed in the name of non-existing entity, it does not remain a procedural irregularity of that nature which could be cured by invoking the provisions of section 292V of the Act. Framing of assessment against a non-existing entity/person goes to […]
M/s. Ayyan Fireworks Factory (P) Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner (CT)-I (FAC) (Madras High Court) Reopening of assessment on mere Audit Party Opinion without disposing Objection of Assesee is not valid The Assessing Officer has to independently record his view for such reopening if he proposes to reopen and thereafter, notice has to be issued to […]
Since neither from reasons nor from any other material on record, it could be gathered that there was any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all-material facts, reopening of assessee’s assessment on ground that she had not disclosed capital gain in her return of income filed, could not be held justified.
Torrent Power Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Gujarat High Court) Gujarat High Court quashed the Circular No. 34/8/2018-GST dated 01.03.2018 which proposes levy of GST on activities carried out by DISCOMS against recovery of charges from consumers under the State Electricity Act i. Application fee for releasing connection of electricity ii. Rental Charges against metering […]
Pr. CIT Vs M/s Viksit Engineering Ltd. (Bombay High Court) Buying and selling of share in short span of time doesn’t changed character of capital gain as business income High Court of Bombay in case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-II v/s Viksit Engineering Ltd vide its ITA Appeal No:485 dated 26th November 2016 has held […]
It was held that in determining whether the presumption has been rebutted, the test of proportionality must guide the determination. The standard of proof for rebuttal of the presumption u/s 139 is guided by a preponderance of probabilities.
