The Hon’ble Sikkim High Court in the case of Future Gaming & Hotel Services Private Limited and others held that activities of distributors & agents selling lottery tickets cannot be considered as activities for facilitating promotion of lottery tickets issued by state government
ITAT Ahmedabad held In the case of ACIT vs. The Mehsana Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd. that intention of assessee at the time of purchase of securities is relevant factore to decide whether it is held for trading or investment .
The ld. Authorised Representative for assessee submitted that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not noting that the impugned assessment had been passed in the absence of proper and valid authorization.
Delhi High Court has held In the case of Fast Booking (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT that Under Section 254 Tribunal has inherent power to entertain alternative plea of which was not urged before CIT(A). High Court Directed the Tribunal to consider the Plea of the Assessee that in case he is denied benefit
Supreme Court held In the case of P. Satyanarayana Murthy V. The Dist. Inspector of Police and ANR that the proof of demand of illegal gratification is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1) (d)(i)&(ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge there for, would fail.
Delhi High Court held In the case of DIT Vs. M/s Ericsson Communications Ltd. that mere passing of the book entries, which are reversed, would not give rise to an obligation to deduct TDS by the Assessee, as clearly, there is no debt that can be said to be acknowledged by the Assessee.
High Court held In the case of M/s Swarovski India Pvt. Ltd. V. DCIT that in this case, queries and issues have been specifically raised and answered by the assessee in the original assessment proceedings. Thus, even though AO did not make any addition in the assessment order
Supreme Court held In the case of SRI S.N. Wadiyar (Dead) through LR V. Commissioner of Wealth Tax that a property which is going to be taken over by the Government at a compensation of Rs. 2 Lakhs and is awaiting notification under Section 10 of the Act for this purpose
Uttarakhand High Court held In the case of CIT (TDS) & others vs. State Bank of India & others that every authority of discretionary power would be obliged to act, in the first place, being guided by relevant considerations and ignoring irrelevant considerations.
Shri Vembu Vaidyanathan Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Left with the relevant date to decide in the facts of the case, the decision of the Tribunal in Purushottam Govind Bhat’;s case (supra) really comes to favour the assessee. In the said case, the assessee joined the society in 1977. He was allotted a flat and occupied […]
