2013 (9) TMI 478 - ITAT MUMBAI
Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s. JSW. Steel Ltd.
Interest u/s 244A(b) - Rectification of error in assessment done - whether interest u/s 244A is to be paid on on self-assessment tax paid ignoring the Explanation section 244A(b) - CIT allowed interest on refund - Held that:- Even though the short t ......
2012 (8) TMI 281 - ITAT MUMBAI
Income-tax Officer. Ward-10(3) (4) Versus Strides Arcolab Ltd.
Disallowance u/s 14A - assessee claimed dividend income as exempt u/s 10(33) - Held that:- On considering the magnitude of profit with the company and the investments made in these shares of Kothari group, it can be easily noticed that the profit for ......
2012 (4) TMI 292 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Ajay Ispat (P.) Ltd. Versus Income-tax Officer, Ward-1(1)
Plea for admission of appeal for waiver of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) assessee being defunct company struck off from the records of ROC on 27.05.2010 - CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on ground that since company is non-existent, there cannot be any ......
2010 (10) TMI 856 - Punjab and Haryana High Court
Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Pure Drinks New Delhi Ltd.
Penalty u/s 140 - failure to deposit the entire amount of advance tax - as per assessee default in making payment was on account of financial stringency due to destruction of equipments and material during riots - Held that:- Tribunal in the assessee ......
2009 (9) TMI 70 - DELHI HIGH COURT
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus HARYANA SHEET GLASS LTD.
Doctrine of relation back return - If the irregularity in the original return is curable, then the doctrine of relation back would apply, on the other hand, if there is a fundamental defect in the original return, which cannot be cured, then such a ......
2009 (8) TMI 847 - ITAT MUMBAI
Morgan Stanley Asset Management Inc. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Range-12
Return of income, etc., not to be invalid in certain cases ......
........... Power of Attorney to be annexed in original along with the return. While finalizing the assessment he will also examine the aspect of the notarization of the Power of Attorney in the given case. If the assessee fails to remove these defects within the prescribed time-limit under section 139(9), then the Assessing Officer will be right in treating the return as invalid in which case there will be no question of allowing any carry forward of the loss under the head lsquo Capital gain rsquo . If, however, the assessee succeeds in rectifying the defects within the prescribed time or as further time granted by him under sub-section (9), then the Assessing Officer shall examine the claim of capital loss on merits. If such a claim is found to be correct then he will allow the carry forward of such loss for the reason that removal of defects shall validate the original and revised return filed by the assessee in time. 51. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
2009 (4) TMI 108 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Prime Securities Limited Versus Varinder Mehta, Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
Defective return - removal of defect - Person competent to sing the return - once Section 140 of the Act mandates that the return has to be signed in the case of a company by the Managing Director and where Managing Director is not available by any D ......
2009 (1) TMI 59 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus HARJINDER KAUR.
Defect in return validity - return does not even bear assessees signatures and had not even been verified by her - Section 292B of the 1961 Act, do not authorize the Assessing Officer to ignore a defect of a substantive nature impugned return wa ......
2008 (7) TMI 393 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus MOTI RAM (DECEASED) (through his legal heir Dharam Pal)
Return whether null and void signature u/s 140 assessment u/s 143(3) legal heirs deceased person can or can not authorized a person to represent his case or to sign his return held that - the return was filed on 28.11.2003. On that day, the ......
2008 (6) TMI 292 - ITAT PUNE-B
Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation. Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax.
Signing Of Return ......
........... any of the members of the executive committee of the assessee-company mdash on the facts of this case, signs and verifies the Income-tax return. The Income-tax return is signed by Chief, Accounts and Finance of the Corporation, who is one of the members of the executive committee of the assessee-company, and, accordingly, section 140(c), on the facts of this case, is complied with. We, therefore, vacate the findings of the CIT(A) that the Income-tax return filed by the assessee was a non est return. The CIT(A) has also held that the notice under section 143(2) was not served in time, and this finding has not been challenged by the Assessing Officer. As a result of this legal position, the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer was time-barred. The impugned assessment is, accordingly, set aside, and the income returned by the assessee is directed to be accepted. The assessee gets the relief accordingly. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above.
2008 (3) TMI 495 - Punjab and Haryana High Court
Hind Samachar Limited Versus Union of India
Return Rectification of mistake - non-signing of the return of income by the managing director - technical and curable defect in view of the provisions of section 139(9) of the Act Held that: - if the return of income is not signed by the person ......
2008 (1) TMI 438 - ITAT DELHI-E
Cobra Instalacions Y Services, Sa. Versus Deputy Director Of Income-Tax.
........... above is clear and does not direct to treat such return as non est. Moreover, non-filing of power of attorney with the return of income will make a return of income defective/invalid or not within the meaning of s. 292B, is an issue relating to a question of law hence debatable in nature. The judicial pronouncements discussed as above, make crystal clear that the return filed by assessee without power of attorney is a valid return eclipsed by tinge of curable irregularity. In view of above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the authorities below were not justified in their conclusion about applicability of s. 154 whereby treating the return non est during the currency of irregularity. Consequently the authorities below have erred in holding that assessee was not eligible for interest under s. 244A for this period. We therefore, set aside their orders and decide the appeal in favour of the assessee. 21. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
2007 (8) TMI 294 - DELHI HIGH COURT
BHARAT NIDHI LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
Whether Tribunal was right in law in treating the return invalid on the ground that it had been signed by secretary, is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 140(c) - there cannot be any doubt that the Assessee had made an error which was ......
2007 (5) TMI 228 - DELHI HIGH COURT
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus BHARAT ALUMINIUM CO. LTD.
Revenue contend that order passed by the AO was prejudicial to the Revenue, as the AO had accepted the revised computation of income without any revised return filed by the assessee revised claim on expenses incurred made during assessment proceedi ......
2007 (2) TMI 148 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MANISH MAHESHWARI and INDORE CONSTRUCTION P. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
Search of the premises of a director of a company and his wife - Block assessment in the hand of company is not permissible as search was not conducted against the company - In case of doubt and dispute, it is well settled, construction has to be mad ......