Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. Addl CIT (TDS), ITAT Visakhapatnam) Even if there is no PAN, if the deductor has deducted TDS as per provisions of sec 192, Section 206AA does not over-ride section 192 in terms of the requirement of “at the rates specified in the relevant provisions of the Act.
ITAT Delhi held in case of ITO v Shri Sameer Jasuja the property has been gifted by the person to his wife, then Assessee will entitled to the exemption u/s 54F if he is left with one property. It further held that section 64(1)(iv) will not operate to nullify gift and would operate only to club income in the hands of donor assessee.
DCIT Vs M/s Ansh Intermediate Services Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Lucknow) The addition cannot be sustained only for the simple reason that these shareholder companies have not responded in first round of commission.
ITAT Delhi held In the case of OSRAM India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT that Article 2(1) of the India Singapore tax treaty provides that the taxes covered shall include tax and surcharge thereon. Once it is concluded that education cess is nothing but an additional surcharge
ITAT Delhi held In the case of DCIT vs. D.R.S. Warehousing (North) Pvt. Ltd. that the company was incorporated to provide material handling, storage, transportation, distribution, movers, packing and warehousing facilities which form part of its business.
Bombay High Court held In the case of CIT vs. M/s. Sunny Sounds P. Ltd. that however these references are undoubtedly made by the tribunal, they emanate from an application by one of the parties before it , giving rise to the question of law requiring the opinion of the court.
Chhattisgarh High Court held that Denial of benefit of rehabilitation, which includes employment, to a married daughter of affected family is violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India.
Bombay High Court held In the case of CIT vs. M/s Tata Teleservices (Maharashtra) Ltd. that court has consistently taken a view that the tribunal has power to extend the stay even after the substituted third proviso to section 254 (2A) was introduced.
Magnificent question of law that has cropped up for consideration in this writ petition is whether the State Government is justified in impliedly excluding married daughter of the affected/displaced family from consideration for employment under the Chhattisgarh State Model Rehabilitation Policy, 2007, as amended, on the ground of her marriage.
In an important judgement in the case of Sri Anjaneya Agro Tech Private Limited Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit) [2016-VIL-63-KAR], Hon ‘ble High Court of Karnataka has ruled that assessee-dealer is entitled to claim benefit of a subsequent judgement of the court, even after completion of assessments, by filing rectification application.
