2015 (10) TMI 2056 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Jamnagar Area Development Authority Versus Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) (Exemptions) -Ahmedabad
Stay of demand rejected - Held that - Since facts are more or less similar and the contentions raised before this court were also similar of in the case of Surat Urban Development Authority v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) 2015 (10) TMI 1903 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT a similar order is required to be passed in the present case. However, considering the fact that an amount equal to two installments has already been recovered from the petitioner which comes to about 25 of the amount demanded, no further amount is required to be directed to be deposited as condition for grant of stay. ....... - .......
2015 (10) TMI 1903 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Surat Urban Development Authority Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption)
Stay of demand - writ petition - Registration under section 12A denied - Assessing Officer assessed the total income of the petitioner as ₹ 48,22,54,670/- and raised a demand of ₹ 20,41,52,870/- in scrutiny assessment - stay petition submitted - Held that - From the facts and contentions noted hereinabove, it is apparent that none of the exceptions laid down by in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, (2013 (8) TMI 458 - SUPREME COURT) interference by the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution have been made out in the facts ....... - .......
2015 (6) TMI 970 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. Kannabiran Versus The Commissioner of Income & The Income Tax Officer
Attachment orders - recovering the Tax - Held that - Inasmuch as the petitioner s only source of livelihood viz., the pension, cannot be attached even for satisfaction of a court decree and, more particularly, when the petitioner s statutory appeal filed under Section 246 of the Act along with the stay application filed on 01.05.2015 is pending, the order of attachment cannot be legally sustained and hence, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled for the relief sought for. - Net result, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the Demand Notice, dated 31.03.2015, and by ....... - .......
2014 (12) TMI 843 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Bangalore Turf Club Ltd. Versus Union of India And Others
TDS u/s 194B - paying price money to the owners of winning horses - it is contended that due taxes have already been paid by the recipients of Stake Money and a payment of the same by the petitioner Club prior to the payment of Stake Money would have led to double taxation which would be ultra vires to the provisions of Article 265 of the Constitution. - Maintainability of petition - Whether writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground that petitioners have an alternate remedy of appeal u/s 246A. - Held that - When an alternate or efficacious remedy is available to a litigant same s ....... - .......
2014 (9) TMI 363 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Deep Kukreti, Sudhir Kukreti Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax And Another
Maintainability of appeal before CIT(A) - aggrieved person - Imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Estimation of fair market value as on 01.04.1981 Held that - Following the decision in Sterling Machine Tools vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 1979 (10) TMI 53 - ALLAHABAD High Court The figure obtained from the registering authority was communicated - the assessee has given his consent to the cost of the land being ₹ 8,000/- per bigha, as on the relevant date, for the purpose of calculation of capital gains - assessee did not choose to make available any evidence in support of their contenti ....... - .......
2015 (6) TMI 308 - DELHI HIGH COURT
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) -I Versus RAKESH GARG
Non-compliance of Section 246 (4) - Held that - There was a financial constraint faced by respondent assessee. Therefore, he took time to arrange for money but the said amount was duly paid before the appeal was dismissed by the first appellate authority. It has been held that the appeal should have been treated as validly filed on the date when the tax amount was paid. - After examining the factual matrix, Tribunal condoned the delay and directed CIT (Appeals) to hear the ....... - .......
2013 (12) TMI 1058 - ITAT MUMBAI
Thirumalai Chemicals Limited. Versus DCIT, OSD 1(1), Mumbai
Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) Expenses on catalysts - Held that - A perusal of the copies of the invoice clearly indicates that the relevant product involved in the purchase is catalyst for phthalic anhydride in the form of ring - This does not suggest that the assessee has purchased any patent, invention, model, design, secret formulae or process or trade mark or similar property which in fact requires the element of the purchase of an intangible asset - Neither the findings of the AO nor that of the Ld. CIT(A) is based on any evidence to support that the payment was royalty - Decided in favour ....... - .......
2013 (1) TMI 437 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Sh. Lalit Wadhwa Versus Commissioner of Income Tax. Gurgaon and another
Attachment of petitioner s bank accounts and rental income u/s 226(3) - disallowance u/s 10B and 14A - Held that - The petitioner s appeal against order dated 28.12.2011 u/s 246 wherein assessment was completed at an income of approximately four times of the returned income and tax demand including interest under Section 234B/C was raised is pending before the Appellate Authority. - The petitioner had filed an application under Section 220(6) before the AO requesting that the entire demand was disputed in the appeal and since it was the first appeal, the demand may be stayed till the disposal ....... - .......
2012 (11) TMI 634 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
DR. RAJESH RAJORA Versus THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN INCOME TAX
Appeal u/s 246 - stay of demand - appeal and stay application both are pending since January, 2011 - held that - Petitioner to file an application for expeditious hearing of the stay application, stated to be pending along with the appeal - On filing of such an application, the respondent No.3 shall consider and decide the application for stay, expeditiously, as far as possible, within a period of 30 days, from the date of filing of such application - So far as appeal is concerned, the respondent No.3 shall make an endeavour to hear and decide the appeal expeditiously, as far as possible, with ....... - .......
2012 (12) TMI 697 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
M JAYABALAN Versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI-VI & Others
Withdrawal of revision petition - rejecting of request as the petitioner had filed a Revision Petition waiving his right to file a first appeal before the CIT (A) - Held that - As decided in CIT Versus D. Lakshminarayanapathi 1998 (12) TMI 12 - MADRAS HIGH COURT filing of a Revision Petition cannot be a bar for the filing of an Appeal, by the assessee, before the appropriate authority, as per the relevant provisions of law. In such circumstances, this Court finds it appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 24.7.2012. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allow ....... - .......
2012 (8) TMI 778 - DELHI HIGH COURT
VIRGIN MOBILE INDIA PVT LTD Versus THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
Assessee in default for non-compliance with Section-194H - imposed a TDS liability on Commission or brokerage - Held that - The use of the expressions discretion and subject to such conditions as he may think fit to impose in the circumstances of the case imply that AO is under a duty to apply his mind and after taking into account the necessary and appropriate circumstances, pass the most suitable order as may be warranted on the facts before him. The Instructions relied upon only reinforce the element of discretion; by no means can it be construed as limiting the choice of the AO who may hav ....... - .......
2013 (1) TMI 335 - KERALA HIGH COURT
SREEJA. K., Versus THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-I & ANR.
Search u/s 132 was conducted at the premises of the educational institution run by the Trust and at the residences of the Trustees Opportunity of being heard - Issuance of pre assessment notice Assessee file an WRIT Petition against assessment order u/s 144 with High court invoking Article 226 - Whether the writ petition is maintainable in view of the statutory remedy provided in law - Whether there exists any special or extra ordinary circumstances which warrants interference of this court, despite availability of an effective statutory remedy - Held that - This court is not in a position to ....... - .......
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 director who can sign the verification for the filing of appeal Held that - It is surprising that Revenue has considered the said company as existing for levy of demand and penalty and on other hand dismissed the appeal on ground of it being non-existent. Therefore, in a situation, where a defunct company can be revived and the directors are responsi ....... - .......
2011 (12) TMI 158 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Maheshwari Agro Industries Versus Union of India
Whether the first appellate authority, namely, CIT(Appeals) or DCIT (Appeals) have inherent power to grant stay and decide the stay application filed along-with appeal/s filed before them u/s 246/246A of Act respectively appeal preferred u/s 246A - application for stay of entire disputed demand made u/s 220 (3) and 220 (6) claim rejected and coercive measures taken - Held that - First appellate authority, namely; DCIT (Appeals) or CIT (Appeals) have inherent, implied and ancillary powers to grant stay against the recovery of disputed demand of tax while seized of the appeal filed before them i ....... - .......
2011 (3) TMI 1383 - Allahabad High Court
CIT Versus District Excise Officer
Whether order passed under sub sections (6) and (7) of Section 206C of the Income Tax Act is appealable under Section 246 of the Act - Department is that only those orders which are specified under Section 246 of the Act are appealable, further submitted that Section 246 has been replaced by Section 246A w.e.f. 1st of April, 1998. At the relevant point of time Section 246A (1) had sub sections (a) to (r) and the orders mentioned in sub clause (a) to (r) could be appealed. As the sub sections (6) and (7) of Section 206C did not find any place in any of these sub sections (a) to (r), the order w ....... - .......