Month: November 2018

Karnataka H.C : The firm, M/s.Srinivasa Enterprises, was the owner of the capital asset viz. land and building comprised in Gopal theatre situated at Tank Road, Doddaballapur

High Court Of Karnataka S.K. Ravikumar vs. ITO Section 45(4) Ravi Malimath & K. Natarajan, JJ. Income Tax Appeal No. 82 OF 2010 28th November, 2018 Counsel Appeared: Priya V., Advocate G.K.V. Murthy, Advocate for the Petitioner.: K. V. Aravind, Advocate for the Respondent RAVI MALIMATH, J. 1. The assessee is a partnership firm in the …

GST : AAR : Whether the applicant being the land owner is liable to pay GST on premises allotted to him, which he intends to distribute among his family members?

Advance Ruling State : Karnataka Order No. : KAR ARDG 29/2018 Date : 28-11-2018 Name of the Entity : SRI. PATRICK BERNARDINZ D’SA Breif Issue : Whether the applicant being the land owner is liable to pay GST on premises allotted to him, which he intends to distribute among his family members? GST – Karnataka AAR …

GST : The Applicant, a landowner, entered into an agreement with Builders & Developers for joint development and promotion of residential / commercial building – Whether the applicant being the landowner is liable to pay GST on premises allotted to him, which he intends to distribute among his family members – HELD – the applicant, being the person who has supplied development rights to a developer in respect of his land, is liable to registration and payment of tax – the Applicant is a supplier of a taxable service by way of transfer of undivided share of land and hence is liable to register himself and discharge the tax – the question is answered in affirmative

GST – Karnataka AAR – The Applicant, a landowner, entered into an agreement with Builders & Developers for joint development and promotion of residential / commercial building – Whether the applicant being the landowner is liable to pay GST on premises allotted to him, which he intends to distribute among his family members – HELD – …

Madras H.C : Notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, was issued without jurisdiction in view of the fact that the notice was not issued within the prescribed time limit of four years

High Court Of Madras T.C.V. Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (Rep. By Its Director, C. Mohan) vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax And Anr. Section 147, 148 Asst. Year 1997-98 S.M. Subramaniam, J. W.P.Nos.34676 & 34677 of 2003 and W.M.P.Nos. 42125 & 42126 of 2003 23rd November, 2018 Counsel Appeared: M.P. Senthil Kumar for the Petitioner.: A.P.Srinivas for …

Punjab & Haryana H.C : The Tribunal erred in law in (in-effect) upholding the disallowance of Rs. 6,19,34,656/- which represented unutilized MODVAT credit of excise duty as on 31.3.1997 i.e. the end of the relevant accounting year, in terms of Section 43B of the Act

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Section 43B Asst. Year 1997-98 Ajay Kumar Mittal & Manjari Nehru Kaul, JJ. ITA No.403 of 2016 21st November, 2018 Counsel Appeared: Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Rohit Jain, Vishal Gupta, Advs. for the Petitioner.: Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing Counsel …

Madras H.C : Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in rejecting the appellant’s valuation of he closing stock of shares on the basis of “since realized value”?

High Court Of Madras P. Amarnath Reddy vs. DCIT Section 145 Asst. Year 2000-01 T.S. Sivagnanam & N.Sathish Kumar, JJ. Tax Case (Appeal) No.979 of 2008 19th November, 2018 Counsel Appeared: Sree Lakshmi Valli for the Petitioner.: T.Ravi Kumar, Senior Standing Counsel for the Respondent. T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J. This appeal, by the appellant/assessee under Section 260A …

Madras H.C : There was a dissolution of the firm as on 31st March 2002 and consequently there was liability to capital gains tax for the Assessment Year 2002-03

High Court Of Madras G.H. Reddy & Associates vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Section 45(4), 187(2) Asst. Year 2002-03 T.S. Sivagnanam & V.Bhavani Subbaroyan, JJ. Tax Case (Appeal) No. 1106 of 2008 16th November, 2018 Counsel Appeared: R.Sivaraman for the Petitioner.: V.Pushpa, Junior Standing Counsel, M.Swaminathan, Senior Standing Counsel for the Respondent. T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J. …

Delhi H.C : the original return [which had declared Rs.49,67,00,907/-and subsequently revised to Rs.49 23,54,662/-] was assessed under scrutiny under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C of the Act on 31 12.2015, at Rs.61,92,17,179/-

High Court Of Delhi FIS Global Business Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr.CIT & Anr. Section 147, 148 Asst. Year 2011-12 S. Ravindra Bhat & Prateek Jalan, JJ. W.P.(C) 12277/2018, C.M. APPL.47539/2018 16th November, 2018 Counsel Appeared: Piyush Kaushik and Tanveer Zaki, Advocates for the Petitioner.: Sanjay Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. …

Madras H.C : Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in sustaining the assumption of jurisdiction by the CIT under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for revising the re-assessment framed by the respondent in accepting the claim of exemption/deduction under Section 54F of the Act in the computation of long term capital gains even though there was apparent jurisdictional error in the attempt to review the order of assessment framed to bring to tax the escaped income within the scope of Section 147 of the Act?

High Court Of Madras Renuka Philip vs. ITO Section 263 Asst. Year 2005-06 T.S. Sivagnanam & N. Sathish Kumar, JJ. Tax Case Appeal No. 286 of 2012 14th November, 2018 Counsel appeared: Sriraman for the Appellant.: R. Hemalatha for the Respondent S. SIVAGNANAM, J. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by …
Malcare WordPress Security