Month: October 2017

Andhra Pradesh H.C : Where impugned order was passed against assessee demanding CENVAT credit improperly availed, said impugned order could not have been set aside solely on ground of denial of permission to cross-examine witnesses

High Court Of Andhra Pradesh Manidhari Stainless Wire (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India Section 73, 11A V. Ramasubramanian And Abhinand Kumar Shavili, JJ. Writ Petition No. 5917 Of 2017 October 31, 2017 ORDER V. Ramasubramanian, J. – The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition challenging an Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of …

Madras H.C : Where Commissioner (Appeals) made an observation that addition made by AO under section 68 represented capital introduced by partners of assessee-firm, AO could initiate suitable proceedings for looking into matter as said aspect of capital introduction by partners had not been examined earlier

High Court Of Madras Alfa Investments vs. ITO, Chennai Section 147, 150 Assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 T.S. Sivagnanam, J. Writ Petition Nos. 27549 & 27550 Of 2017 W.M.P. Nos. 29473 & 29474 Of 2017 October 31, 2017 ORDER 1. Heard Mr. M. P. Senthil Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. Hema …

Delhi H.C : Where assessment was sought to be reopened in case of assessee, a Mauritius based TV program distributor, on ground that subscription fees received by it from Indian AE was taxable under section 9(1)(i) while, in fact, assessee had not conducted any business with ‘AE’ during relevant year, reason for reopening of assessment was invalid

High Court Of Delhi ESS Distribution (Mauritius) S.N.C.E.T Compagnie vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi Section 9, 147, 148 Muralidhar And Prathiba M. Singh, JJ. W.P. (C) Nos. 11968, 11971, 11972 & 12031 Of 2016 October  31, 2017 JUDGMENT Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. – These are four writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. …

S.C : Where assessee, foreign company, had entered into contracts with (ONGC) for giving hire of their rig for carrying out oil exploration activities in India, mobilisation fee received by assessee was to be included for computation of deemed profits and gains of business, chargeable to tax under section 44BB

Supreme Court Of India Sedco Forex International Inc. Vs. CIT, Meerut Section 44BB, 5, 9 A. K. Sikri And Ashok Bhushan, Jj. Civil Appeal Nos. 4906 To 4911, 4913 To 4926, 5934, 5935, 8595 Of 2010,5152 To 5155 Of 2011, 2166, 3695 Of 2012,267-268, 2631, 4543, 8627, 8665, 9188 Of 2013, 5005, 6573, 6651 Of 2014,5015, …

Delhi H.C : Department is precluded from invoking section 9(2)(g) of DVAT to deny ITC (input tax credit) to a purchasing dealer who has bonafidely entered into a purchase transaction with a registered selling dealer who has issued a tax invoice reflecting TIN number

High Court Of Delhi On Quest Merchandising India (P.) Ltd. vs. Government of NCT of Delhi Section : 16, 9 S. Muralidhar And Chander Shekhar, JJ. W.P. (C) Nos. 4086 Of 2013, 2383,4904,10708 Of 2015, 2106,4573,4574, 4704,4709,4710,4713,4714,4788,6583,11846 Of 2016, 6093,6804 & 7388 Of 2017 Cm. Nos. 9620 Of 2013, 19649,26973,46676 Of 2016 & 25293 Of 2017 …

Rajasthan H.C : The notice u/s 148 dated 22.03.2010 having been sent through speed post and not having been received back, there was a presumption as to the service of the same ignoring fact

High Court Of Rajasthan Shubhashri Panicker vs. CIT K. S. Jhaveri & Vijay Kumar Vyas, JJ. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 202/2015 Section 148, 142(1) 24th October, 2017 Counsel appeared: Mahendra Gargeiya for the Petitioner.: Anuroop Singhi with Aditya Vijay for the Respondent JUDGMENT 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment …

Karnataka H.C : Where assessee sold her immovable property and made investment in infrastructure bonds though with delay of about six months, since assessee had satisfied condition for availing exemption under section 54EC, assessee could not be denied exemption merely on bar of limitation; thus, said delay was to be condoned

High Court Of Karnataka Dr. (Smt.) Sujatha Ramesh vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi Section 54EC, 119 Assessment year 2013-14 Vineet Kothari, J. Writ Petition No. 54672/2015 (T-IT) October  24, 2017 ORDER 1. The petitioner, Dr. Sujatha Ramesh, has filed this petition in this Court, aggrieved by the order passed by the Respondent, Commissioner …

S.C : Where Indian subsidiary company only rendered support services which enabled assessees (two American companies) in turn to render services to their clients abroad, this outsourcing work to India would not give rise to a fixed place PE

Supreme Court Of India Assistant Director of Income-tax-1, New Delhi Vs. E-Funds IT Solution Inc. Section  9 Assessment years 2000-01 to 2002-03 and 2004-05 to 2007-08 R.F.Nariman And Sanjay Kishan Kaul, JJ. Civil Appeal Nos. 6082 To 6085, 6087 To 6097, 6099, 6100 To 6104 Of 2015, 2962 Of 2016 & 16958 Of 2017 October  24, …

Kerala H.C : An assessee did not disclose his income fully, and it led to a reassessment. On a particular plea about the source of income, the assessee pleads in defence that he sold a few bars of gold. He gave the particulars of the putative purchasers, too. A few, though not all, have been examined and found to be untrustworthy. The question is, who has the burden proof on the source of income

High Court Of Kerala CIT, Thrissur vs. B.P. Sherafudin Section 68, 251, 147, 148, 263 Assessment year 1995-96 Antony Dominic And Dama Seshadri Naidu, JJ. IT Appeal Nos . 881 & 1294 Of 2009 October  24, 2017  JUDGMENT Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.– Introduction: An assessee did not disclose his income fully, and it led to a …
Malcare WordPress Security