Month: February 2014

Bombay H.C : Where there was considerable discrepancy in quantity of gold recorded in assessee’s books at time when ornaments were manufactured and received from artisans, as compared to gold actually exported by assessee to its foreign importers and such differential quantity of gold did not form part of assessee’s exports, it was rightly concluded that gold was subjected to local sales

High Court Of Bombay Director Of Income-Tax (International Taxation) Vs. Income Tax Settlement Commissioner Section 143 Assessment Year 1989-90 Mohit S. Shah And M.S. Sanklecha, JJ. Writ Petition No. 559 Of 2008 February 28, 2014 JUDGMENT Akil Kureshi, J – Assessee has challenged judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad (“Tribunal” for short) dated 7th …

Bombay H.C : Where assessee did not challenge order of transfer of its case at earliest letting all believe that such transfer was accepted, assessee should be barred from challenging same on exercise of jurisdiction by new authority

High Court Of Bombay Patel Knr Jv VS. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2012-13 Section : 127 Mohit S. Shah, Cj. And M.S. Sanklecha, J. Writ Petition No. 422 Of 2013 February 28, 2014 JUDGMENT M.S. Sanklecha, J. -By this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges : …

Delhi H.C : In terms of section 148, law only requires that information or material on which Assessing Officer records his or her satisfaction has to be communicated to assessee, without mandating disclosure of any specific document

High Court Of Delhi Acorus Unitech Wireless (P.) Ltd. VS. ACIT Assessment Year : 2009-10 Section : 148, 147 S. Ravindra Bhat And R.V. Easwar, Jj. W.P. (C) No. 1954 Of 2013 C.M. Appl. No. 3721 Of 2013 February 28, 2014 ORDER S. Ravindra Bhat, J. – This writ petition impugns reassessment notices issued and proceedings …

Delhi H.C : The amount has been spent during the Assessment Year 2006-07, for the higher education of Sh. Dushyant Poddar, a son of its Director, was not liable as “business expenditure” under Section 37

High Court Of Delhi Kostub Investment Ltd. vs. CIT Section 37(1) S. Ravindra Bhat And Rajiv Shakdher, JJ. IT Appeal No. 10 Of 2014 February 25, 2014 ORDER S. Ravindra Bhat, J. – The present appeal is directed against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“ITAT”) dated 09.01.2012, and involves decisions on the following …

Tripura H.C : Where Commissioner gave a number of opportunities of being heard to assessee, revision order could not be assailed for not following principle of natural justice

High Court Of Tripura Ashutosh Bandopadhyay vs. CIT Assessment Year : 2007-08 Section : 263, 68 Deepak Gupta, Cj. And S. Talapatra, J. W.P. (C) No. 444 Of 2010 February  25, 2014 JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, CJ. – By means of this writ petition the petitioner has laid challenge to the revisional order dated May 12, 2010, …

Karnataka H.C : The assessee’s claim for deduction under Section 80IB of the Act is not hit by the exception provider a in Section 80IB(2)(iii) read with Schedule 11th (Item 25) to the Income-Tax Act, as polyutherim foam used by the assessee in the manufacture of automobile seat results in commercially different product then that mentioned in the 11th Schedule

High Court Of Karnataka CIT vs. Polyfex (India) (P.) Ltd. Assessment Year : 2003-04 Section : 80-IB Dilip B. Bhosale And B. Manohar, JJ. IT Appeal No. 623 Of 2007 February  25, 2014 JUDGMENT Dilip B. Bhosale, J. – This income tax appeal is directed against the order dated 16th March 2007 rendered by Income Tax Appellate …

Kerala H.C : No part of the deposits were found to be not genuine and were accepted in the assessment, did not the Appellate Tribunal err in law in sustaining the order imposing penalty u/s 271D

High Court Of Kerala N. S. S. Karayogam vs. CIT Assessment Year : 2010-11 Section : 269SS, 271D Dr. Manjula Chellur, CJ. And A.M. Shaffique, J. IT Appeal No. 19 Of 2014 February 25, 2014 JUDGMENT Dr. Manjula Chellur, CJ. – Heard learned counsel for appellant as well as standing counsel for Revenue. 2. The matter is …

Delhi H.C : Where Assessing Officer rejected stay application on recovery of tax demand and issued garnishee order on same date when stay application was rejected, though technically no fault could be found with Assessing Officer, still there was an element of impropriety in his action

High Court Of Delhi Sony India (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT Assessment Year : 2009-10 Section : 226, 92C, 220 Ravindra Bhat And R.V. Easwar, JJ. W.P.(C) Nos. 1178 & 1235 Of 2014 C.M. Application Nos. 2465 & 2576 Of 2014 February  24, 2014 ORDER R.V. Easwar, J. – This writ petition has been filed by Sony …
Malcare WordPress Security