Sri. P.P.Sharafuddin Vs. ITO (ITAT Cochin) The amount of Rs. 14 lakh was seized by the police from the assessee on 03.03.2008. At the time of seizure, the assessee did not mention that the amount seized belongs to his uncle. Because of the suspicious behavior and lack of explanation on the part of the assessee, […]
Gopalratnam Santha Mosur Vs ITO (Madras High Court) The petitioner was the co-owner of the immovable property situated in Tamil Nadu and she had sold the property and paid the entire capital gain tax applicable in respect of the transaction. The petitioner thereafter claimed 50% of the capital gains tax as rebate under Indo-Canadian DTAA. […]
Since satisfaction note was recorded by AO of searched person who also happened to be AO of assessee (other person) as well to effect that seized documents belonged to assessee, issuance of notice under section 153C on basis of such note was justified.
The petitioner had questioned and challenged the validity of office order dated 11th May, 2017 passed by the Secretary, Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (hereinafter referred to as Maha RERA for short). In the impugned order the Maha RERA observed that since the term ‘Co promoter’ is not defined in the Act,Rules or Regulations, it […]
CIT(E), at the stage of granting registration under section 12A was required to examine objects of society and not the application of income which would to be undertaken by AO on a year to year basis therefore, assessee’s objective being charitable within the meaning of section 2(15), CIT(E) was not justified in denying the registration on the ground that the assessee had not submitted its books of account.
The question raised in this batch of Appeals is as to whether the instructions/circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes on 9.2.2011 will have retrospective operation or not.
Bombay High Court held in the case of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs Commissioner of Central Service that While deciding an application for stay of demand, the Appellate Tribunal can only consider the prima facie case of merits. It cannot give a final finding on the merits and decide the appeal itself
Shri R K Jain Vs. Indian Bank Association (IBA) (Central Information Commission) Taking into account that the IBA performs functions as State agency and its majority control vests in Government of India appointed Managing Directors of Public Sector Banks, the IBA qualifies to be a public authority under the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission, therefore, directs the IBA […]
Addition on account of discount extended to prepaid distributors Third proviso to section 194H will get attracted only when the nature of payment is “commission or brokerage”. Parties before us agree that majorly the distribution of products by BSNL and MTNL takes place through Public Call Office franchisees since this was an infrastructure existing with […]
It is abundantly clear that the very basis of the penalty proceedings was set aside by the Tribunal in an appeal against the assessment order. There was no addition of income. On the contrary, the case of the assessee, which was negated by the assessing officer of carrying on the business of draft discounting, is accepted by the Tribunal. Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, would not arise.
