Alamelu Veerappan Vs ITO (Madras High Court) Admittedly, the limitation period for issuance of notice for reopening expired on 31.3.2017. The impugned notice was issued on 30.3.2017 in the name of the dead person. On being intimated about the death, the Department sent the notice to the petitioner – his spouse to participate in the […]
Ramilaben D. Jain Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court) Details of the sales and purchase in shares during the year resulted in the conclusion of the Tribunal that total 73 transactions were disclosed. Only one transaction is shown in long term capital gain category. The other transactions are sales and purchase of shares during the year itself. […]
We have found that the Revenue’s advocates are often handicapped for neither the records are produced nor are officers competent to give instructions to these advocates for the Revenue present in the Court. It is time to remind the Revenue that arguing legal matters or proceedings before the highest court in the State should not be taken casually and lightly.
Saif Ali Khan Pataudi Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) In case the property or part thereof was vacant during the period, the proportion deduction should be allowed from the sum on which the property might reasonably be let out from year to year. We find that it is the plea of the assessee that due to […]
PCIT Vs M/s. Sakthi Sugers Ltd. (Madras High Court) Issue- Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in allowing the rental income of the assessee as ‘business income’ instead of ‘income from house property‘ when the principal object of the assessee company is not letting out of properties ? When this matter came up for hearing on 08.12.2017, we posed a […]
Prabhat Agarwal Vs DCIT (Delhi High Court) In this case revenue played a subterfuge, in trying to cover up its omission, and in ante dating the record, in the attempt to establish that such reasons existed, and this court’s interference was not called for. In these circumstances, this court hereby directs the Chief Commissioner concerned […]
Where assessee had independently acquired multiple flats, which, however, were joined together and used by the assessee as a single residential unit, the claim for exemption under section 54 in respect of total investment made towards acquisition of the said flats could not be denied.
DCIT Vs M/s. B S. Infosolution Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Delhi) ITAT Held that No prudent person with some commercial prudence would pay a hefty premium of Rs. 190/- on a book value of Rs. 82/-, hold it for one year, and then sell the same shares at book value. Further Though the premium is justified […]
In view of the GST regime and the IT platform being new, it may not be justifiable to expect the users to back up digital evidences. Even under the old taxation laws, it is a settled legal position that substantive input credits cannot be denied or altered on account of procedural grounds.
CIT Vs M/S C. C. Chokshi And Co. (Supreme Court of India) The Registry has listed these matters on the ground that the tax effect is less than Rs. 1 Crore and, therefore, as per the Circular of the CBDT, these are not pressed by the Income tax Department and are to be dismissed on […]
