September 2009

Income Tax Case Laws, Sec. 44BB, Section 42

Uttarakhand H.C : the CIT(A) which was perverse on facts and circumstances of the case in not appreciating the facts that production sharing contract (PSC) was applicable only to the members of the consortium/joint venture and the assessee, Enron Export Services Inc. (EESI) was not a member of consortium/joint venture and it was only an affiliate of Enron Oil & Gas India Ltd. (EOGIL). Hence, the terms and condition of the production sharing contract were not applicable to the EESI at all

/

High Court Of Uttarakhand CIT vs. Enron Expat Services Inc. Section 42, 44BB, 90(2), DTAA between India & USA, art.

Section 44, Sec. 44AB, Section 271, Section 271B

Allahabad H.C : There was a reasonable cause for not getting the accounts audited as no accounts were maintained, and thus the assessee could not be penalised both under ss. 271A and 271B of the IT Act, whereas the assessee being a contractor having total receipts from contract work at Rs. 1,24,69,486 has failed to maintain books of account and has not got his accounts audited under s. 44AB of the IT Act. Thereafter, the assessee has violated the provisions contained in both the sections and he is liable for penal action both under ss. 271A and 271B

/

High Court Of Allahabad CIT & ANR. vs. S.K. Gupta & Co. Section 44AB, 271A, 271B Asst. Year 1990-91 R.K.

Scroll to Top
Malcare WordPress Security