Follow Us:

Judiciary

S. 271FA Penalty justified for delayed filing of AIR return without reasonable explanation

July 17, 2011 883 Views 0 comment Print

It is noticed that the respondent issued a notice to the petitioner under section 271FA on February 23, 2010, requiring him to attend his office on March 11, 2010, and show cause as to why the penalty under section 271FA should not have been imposed upon him for failure to file the annual information returns within the prescribed time.

If the company has undertaken certain activities as mentioned in its original objects, then it is sufficient to conclude that the business has commenced and that the expenditure incurred by the assessee is allowable

July 16, 2011 561 Views 0 comment Print

CIT Versus Gujarat Urban Development Co. Ltd. (HC of Gujrat at Ahemdabad) – The tribunal however, was of the opinion that the assessee company had undertaken activities in earlier year in accordance with its main objects contained in memorandum of Articles of Association of the company.

Mere non-filing of an appeal against the additions made by the AO and voluntary surrender of any amount to buy peace of mind alone cannot constitute sufficient grounds for the imposition of a concealment penalty

July 16, 2011 2680 Views 0 comment Print

CIT v Harsh Talwar (High Court of Delhi)- The Assessing Officer has gone on the presumption that the assessee himself agreed to the surrender on his own sweet will and consequently, penalty is leviable. This is not reason justifiable enough for the levy of penalty. The assessee might surrender an amount for taxation for various reasons best known to the assessee. The surrender of an amount to taxation in the course of assessment proceedings, no doubt is a good finding for initiation of penalty proceeding but is not strong enough for the levy of penalty especially when in the course of penalty proceedings the assessee is able to place evidences and explanation and where he is fully entitled to challenge the surrender and prove the surrender itself was not called for.

Merely because assessee has not claimed refund in return form itself, it cannot be said that assessee not entitled to refund

July 16, 2011 12408 Views 2 comments Print

Indglonal Investment & Finance Ltd. v. ITO (Delhi HC)- Whether since in accordance with section 139(9) assessee had annexed statement of total income, computation of tax payable on total income and attachment of original TDS certificate to return of income, it could be held assessee had made a claim for refund – Held, yes – Whether therefore, revenue was to be directed to process claim on merits for refund to assessee – Held, yes

Discount offered by cellular companies to distributors on SIM cards and recharge coupons is in the nature of ‘commission’ on which tax is required to be withheld

July 16, 2011 1381 Views 0 comment Print

Bharti Cellular Ltd. v. ACIT (Calcutta HC) After selling all Sim cards and pre-paid coupons to retailers, franchisees were to make payment of sale proceeds to assessee after deducting a discount – Whether there was principal-agent relationship between assessee and franchisees and, therefore, receipt of discount by franchisee was, in real sense, commission paid to franchisees and same would attract provisions of section 194H – Held, yes

Colourable Device and Gains Taxable In USA Parent’s Hands , Sale of shares of foreign company taxable if object is to acquire the Indian assets

July 16, 2011 1264 Views 0 comment Print

Though the reliefs claimed in these four writ petitions are different, the core issue raised in all these four writ petitions is, whether any income chargeable to tax in India has accrued or arisen or deemed to have accrued or arisen in India to New Cingular Wireless Services Inc

DCIT Vs M/s Aban Offshore Ltd (ITAT Chennai)

July 15, 2011 1486 Views 0 comment Print

DCIT, Chennai Vs M/s Aban Offshore Ltd (ITAT Chennai) – Whether disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) is warranted for deduction of tax @ 1% on subcontract where the sub-contract is entered into to fulfill the conditions of the main contract and the same is not independent to the main contract ?

For deriving the benefit of section 22, the occupier and the owner must be the same person and hence the benefits are not available to partners if the occupant is firm

July 15, 2011 4877 Views 0 comment Print

Shri Prodip Kumar Bothra vs Commissioner of Income-Tax (Calcutta High Court)- A partnership firm cannot take advantage of the ownership of a property owned by its partner in his individual capacity for the purpose of getting benefit of taxation and in the same way, a partner also in his individual capacity cannot treat the right of possession exercised by the firm in any property as his own right of possession so as to get benefit of taxation.

SC asks CBDT and CBEC to draft uniform policy on appeals in lost cases

July 15, 2011 796 Views 0 comment Print

Commissioner of Central Excise vs M/S. Doaba Steel Rolling Mills -Supreme Court- It is observed by the SC that We, may however, hasten to add that it is high time when the Central Board of Direct and Indirect Taxes comes out with a uniform policy, laying down strict parameters for the guidance of the field staff for deciding whether or not an appeal in a particular case is to be filed. We are constrained to observe that the existing guidelines are followed more in breach, resulting in avoidable allegations of malafides etc on the part of the officers concerned.

Despite Less than 30 day Holding, Share Gain is STCG & not Business Profit

July 15, 2011 5706 Views 0 comment Print

These are cross appeals by the assessee and the revenue except for the AY 2004-05 for which the assessee Shri Hitesh S Doshi has filed cross objection against the respective orders of the CIT(A) for the assessment years 2003-04, 04-05 and 06-07.

Search Post by Date
May 2026
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031