M/s. Jaap Auto Distributors Vs Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Madras High Court) A Writ Court cannot make a fact finding exercise to ascertain, which would be an appropriate entry under which the goods are to be classified. In fact, under the normal course in respect of classification disputes, the High Court cannot entertain an appeal […]
Once the Chief Justice is stated to be the master of the roster, he alone has the prerogative to constitute Benches. Needless to say, neither a two-Judge Bench nor a three-Judge Bench can allocate the matter to themselves or direct the composition for constitution of a Bench. To elaborate, there cannot be any direction to the Chief Justice of India as to who shall be sitting on the Bench or who shall take up the matter as that touches the composition of the Bench. We reiterate such an order cannot be passed. It is not countenanced in law and not permissible.
Annual value of a house could be taken as nil only when either the house is occupied for own residence or could not be occupied by the owner, if he is residing in a building not owned by him at other place due to his employment, business or profession carried out at other place.
Representatives from the Institute of Chartered Accountant have prayed for some time to assist this Bench whether disparaging remarks of a personal nature would fall within the purview of a Chartered Accountant to be mentioned in the Audit report.
The Income Tax Act, in particular Section 90 thereof, does not speak of the concept of a PE. This is a creation only of the DTAA. By virtue of Article 7(1) of the DTAA, the business income of companies which are incorporated in the US will be taxable only in the US, unless it is found that they were PEs in India
Anything which can properly be described as income is taxable under the Act unless expressly exempted. Following the above principle, Court held that interest earned by Assessee is clearly its income and unless it can be shown that any provision like Section 10 has exempted it from tax, it will be taxable.
In the present case, the petitioner has not made any representation under Section 13 (13-A) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 before the bank and has approached this Court by-passing statutory mechanism which has been disapproved by the Supreme Court in the case of Devi Ispat Limited and another Vs. State Bank of India and other (2014) 5 SCC 762.
Court is satisfied that no error was committed by the ITAT in holding that the value declared in the tax return filed by the Assessees under WTA cannot be taken to be the cost of acquisition in the hands of the Assessees.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Mumbai) has held that, Income from Capital Asset is Capital Gain and not business Income even if Assessee was regularly booking Flats and Selling the same. Any kind of Income from Capital Assets held by the Assessee whether or not connected with his business of profession earned must be treated as capital gain.
The challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated 21-12-2016 passed by the Principal Commissioner (PCIT) rejecting the Petitioners application under section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) on the ground of limitation.
