CIT Vs M/s National Travel Services (Delhi High Court)- When Section 2 (22) (e) of the Act enacts a deeming provision, it has to be strictly construed. At the same time, it is also trite that such a deeming provision has to be taken to its logical conclusion. If the partnership firm which has purchased the shares is not treated as shareholder merely because the shares were purchased in the name of the partners, that too because of the legal compulsion that shares could not be allotted to the said partnership firm which is a non legal entity, it would be impossible for such a condition to be fulfilled.
Read the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision in CIT vs. Ms. Jagriti Aggarwal on Section 54 claim under the Income Tax Act. Legal insights provided.
Om Prakash Vs Union of India (Supreme Court of India), Dated: September 30, 2011)- Central Excise Act – Sub-section (2) of Section 9A makes provision for compounding of all offences under Chapter II.
Sandvik Asia Limited Vs. DCIT (ITAT Pune)- The Issue before the tribunal was whether interest paid on income tax due can be set off against interest received on income tax refunds under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Before the Division Bench (DB) of the Pune Tribunal, there was a difference of opinion between the Members and, accordingly, the issue was referred to the Third Member for a majority opinion. The Third Member held that the interest paid and interest received from the Tax Authority cannot be set off against each other and the whole of the interest received is taxable under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Facts- The taxpayer is a tax resident of Mauritius. BG Exploration & Production India Ltd (BG) is a co-venturer with ONGC Ltd and Reliance Industries Ltd, who are party to the production sharing agreement for Panna, Mukta and South Tapti contract areas.
Dalmia Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (Delhi High Court)- It is well settled that audit objection on the point of fact can be a valid ground for reopening of assessment. In the case of New Light Trading Co. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2002) 256 ITR 391 (Del), a Division Bench of this court after referring to the decision of Supreme Court in CIT vs. P. V.S. Beedies Pvt. Ltd. (1999) 237 ITR 13 (SC), has held as under (at page 393) :’In the case of P. V. S. Beedies Pvt. Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 13, the apex court held that the audit party can point out a fact, which has been overlooked by the Income-tax Officer in the assessment.
CIT Vs Splender Construction (Delhi High Court)- When the land which was held as stock in trade for several years is converted into investment just before the sale, it can be said that the assessee did so to pay lesser taxes, and it amounts to furnishing inaccurate particulars, warring levy of penalty . If Merits Successively Rejected, Issue “Not Debatable.
Shri Homi K. Bhabha Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)- Ordinarily neither the assessee nor the Revenue can be allowed to re argue the same issue over and over again, when it has already been decided by a coordinate bench of the tribunal.
ACIT Vs. Punjab State Coop & Marketing (ITAT Chandigarh)- The assessee has placed on record the details of investment along with the amount of investment in shares in five companies made by the assessee. On perusal of the said details reveal that majority of the investments were made prior to 1994 and on the said investments
ADIT (International Taxation)-3(1) Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)- The issue in this appeals is with reference to the capital gains arising to various persons of Indian origin or non-resident Indians residing in UAE, who are clients of the Bank. These clients have invested in Government of India T-Bills, which has a tenure of 364 days. The T-Bills are also transferable before maturity. The clients purchased and sold these T-Bills during the year for which Bank, according to the guidelines of the RBI has opened a second subsidiary general ledger in their own name on behalf of their constituents/investors as required by the guidelines.
