CIT Vs. M/S Mcdowell & Co Ltd Now Known As United Spirits Ltd (Karnataka High Court) In the instant case, as per the scheme he was allowed to retain the sales tax as determined by the competent authority and pay the same 15 years thereafter. The tax collected was deemed to have been paid and, […]
The Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal in the case of Star Industries v/s The State of Gujarat (Second Appeal No. 347 of 2013 decided on 02.09.2014) has, in the context of penalty u/s 45(2)(c) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, held that where only under bonafide belief the appellant had failed to pay purchase tax u/s 15B on the transactions of branch transfer
In the present case, the submission of the assessee before the Tribunal, as recorded in paragraph 3 of the impugned order, is that the only reason which was given by the Assessing Officer for initiating reassessment proceedings was that the property was sold by the assessee for Rs.31 lacs
Madras High Court upholds assessment of excess gold jewellery as unexplained investment; rejects plea based on Board Instruction dated 11.5.1994.
Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kumararani Meenakshi Achi (supra) has held that the differential treatment cannot be meted out to another co-owner while making the assessment of same property or while valuing the same property.
The respondent-assessee had submitted that their total turnover was Rs.4697.23 crores, as against investment in shares of Rs.2.95 crores. In the previous assessment years they were maintaining dual portfolio of investment (capital asset) and stock-in-trade (trading asset).
DCIT Vs Narayani Ispat (P) Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata) Interest was paid for delayed payment of service tax & TDS. The interest for the delay in making the payment of service tax & TDS is compensatory in nature. As such the interest on delayed payment is not in the nature of penalty in the instant case […]
assessee had set up a unit at Baddi in Himachal Pradesh for packaging of Horlics, Boost for Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. The assessee filed its return of income claiming deduction u/s 80IC of Rs. 6,59,69,287/- @ 100% on the profits of the eligible business alleging
Even the wider language of Section 20 of the Kerala Rent Control Act does not enable the High Court to act as a first or a second court of appeal. We are in full agreement with the view of the 3-Judge Bench in Rukmini Amma Saradamma v. Kallyani Sulochana and others; [(1993) 1 SCC 499]
In the present case, there was no basis for the AO to determine that the true value of the property was Rs. 1.25 crores, by adopting the return on capital method. The AO was under a duty first to ascertain what was according to him the true cost of the property.
