Month: March 2014

Delhi H.C : Payment for provision of passive infrastructure by petitioner, an owner of network of telecom towers, to telecom service providers amounts to ‘rent for use of machinery, plant or equipment

High Court Of Delhi Indus Towers Ltd. vs. CIT Section : 194-I, 194C S. Ravindra Bhat And R.V. Easwar, JJ. W.P.(C) No. 6085 Of 2013 C.M. Nos. 13383 To 13385 Of 2013 March 31, 2014 ORDER S. Ravindra Bhat, J. – The Petitioner in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (hereafter “Indus”) …

Delhi H.C : Where accounts did not contain narration of some entries and assessee failed to submit comparative details of expenditure in SEZ and non-SEZ units and affairs of company were not transparent, direction for special audit required

High Court Of Delhi DLF Ltd. vs. ACIT Section 142, 80-IAB, 145 Sanjiv Khanna And Sanjeev Sachdeva, JJ. Writ Petition (Civil ) No. 2363 Of 2013 March 28, 2014 ORDER Sanjiv Khanna, J. – The petitioner is a real estate developer engaged in creation, execution and sale of residential and commercial projects. It also earns income …

Delhi H.C : Even where existence of PE of petitioner non-resident company was in dispute, if petitioner had not filed return in response to notice issued under section 148, it did not act strictly in accordance with law

High Court Of Delhi Adobe Systems Software Ireland Ltd. vs. ADIT Assessment Year : 2008-09 Section : 9, 127, 148 Ravindra Bhat And R.V. Easwar, JJ. W.P.(C) Nos. 2326, 2328 & 2330 Of 2013 March  28, 2014 ORDER R.V. Easwar, J. – In this petition presented under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner assails the …

Rajasthan H.C : Whether however, where ruler ‘lets-out’ part of palace declared as his official residence; since ruler parted with possession of let-out portion of palace, exemption would not be available

High Court Of Rajasthan CIT, Jaipur Vs. Maharao Bhim Singh Section10(19A)  Ajay Rastogi, Mohammad Rafiq And Alok Sharma, JJ. D.B. I T Reference No. 64 Of 1986 March 26, 2014 JUDGMENT Mohammad Rafiq, J. – This reference has been made by the Division Bench vide order dated 25.05.1988 to the Larger Bench on account of conflict …

Allahabad H.C : Where transformer oil had been purchased by assessee from market and centrifuging i.e., processing had been done by centrifugal machine in order to make it usable in transformer and no articles or things had emerged from said processing, assessee was not entitled to benefits of 100 per cent deduction under section 80-IA

High Court Of Allahabad CIT vs. S.K. Transformer (P.) Ltd. Assessment Year : 1997-98 Section : 80-IA Ashok Bhushan And Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, JJ. IT Appeal No. 343 Of 2005 March  26, 2014 ORDER M.C. Tripathi, J. – Heard Sri Shambhu Chopra, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Nitin Kesharwani, learned counsel appearing for the …

Allahabad H.C : Assessee’s claim for adjustment of tax liability against proceeds of seized assets was misconceived as recovery can be initiated only on crystallization of liability on completion of assessment

High Court Of Allahabad Hemant Kumar Sindhi vs. CIT Section : 132B Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, CJ. And Dilip Gupta, J. Writ Tax No. 189 Of 2014 March 26, 2014 ORDER 1. The petitioners have sought to question the legality of an order dated 1 January 2014 passed by the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Investigation), …

Punjab & Haryana H.C : Agricultural income shown was nil and assessee was unable to dispute that land was falling within limits of Municipality of Amritsar, it could not be conclusively held that agricultural activities were being carried on land and thus, petitioner was entitled for benefit under section 10(37)

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana Kanav Khanna vs. CIT – II, Amritsar Section 10(37), 194LA Ajay Kumar Mittal And Ms. Anita Chaudhry, JJ. C.W.P. No. 24902 Of 2013 (O&M) March  26, 2014 ORDER CM No.3843 of 2014 Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. – The documents Annexures P.17 to P.19 alongwith the application are taken on record …

Gujarat H.C : Where Assessing Officer while placing reasons recorded for approval of Commissioner prior to issuance of notice under section 148, recorded in Form No. ITNS-10 that income which escaped assessment was more than Rs. one lakh, statutory bar imposed against reopening of assessment under section 149(1)(b) would not operate in such a case

High Court Of Gujarat Lalita Ashwin Jain vs. ITO Assessment Year : 2006-07 Section : 149, 151, 147, 69 Akil Kureshi And Ms. Sonia Gokani, JJ. Special Civil Application Nos. 1626 & 1627 Of 2014 March  25, 2014 JUDGMENT Ms. Sonia Gokani, J. – Challenging the notice of reopening for the A.Y 2006-2007 issued under Section …
Malcare WordPress Security