|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - High Court - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 52985 Records
More information of case laws are visible to the Subscriber of a package i.e:-
Party Name, Court Name, Date of Decision, Full Text of Headnote & Decision etc.
- 2020 (7) TMI 253
Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - Scope of amendment brought about in the Finance Act, 2010 in Section 40(a)(ia) - retrospectively or prospectively effect of amendment - HELD THAT:- The issue whether the aforesaid amendment being curative in nature has retrospective operation was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of CALCUTTA EXPORT COMPANY [2018 (5) TMI 356 - SUPREME COURT] and it was held that the purpose of amendment made by Finance Act, 2010 is to solve the anomalies and proviso was inserted to remedy unintended consequences and to make the provision workable. A proviso which supplies an obvious omission in the Section is required to be read into the Section to give the Section a reasonable interpretation and requires to be treated as retrospective in operation so that a reasonable interpretation can be given to the Section as a w....... + More
- 2020 (7) TMI 252
Revision u/s 263 - Reopening of assessment u/s 147 dropped - exemption u/s 11 - non recording any reasons by recording its own reasons for the first time in its order presuming the reasons on which the AO would have passed an order - HELD THAT:- From perusal of the proceeding, it is evident that the assessee was called upon to furnish certain details as well as documents on 28.10.2004 and 06.01.2005, which were supplied by the assessee on 18.02.2005. The Deputy Director, Income Tax (Exemptions) on 23.02.2005 confirmed that the assessee’s consolidation of accounts was done at Mumbai and assessment was completed. After examining the submissions, made by the assessee, the proceeding under Section 147 of the Act were dropped. Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) in its order has found that the assessee for the Assessment year 1997-98 had....... + More
- 2020 (7) TMI 251
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - transfer of the assessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 Jurisdiction of Assessing Officers - shift of assessee's residence - HELD THAT:- It is a question of fact that the petitioner though shifted his residence in the year 2015 from Alappuzha to Ernakulam and issuance of Pan card Ext.P1 in the year 2019 is a testimony of the same for the remaining assessment years of course in case of any dispute with income tax the jurisdiction would be vested with the Income Tax Authority, Ernakulam. AO is required to record the satisfaction as per the provisions of sub section (2) before the assessment is made. It is a matter of record that the request Ext.P4 is dated 04.01.2020, ie within few days of receipt of the reassessment notice dated 30.12.02019 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. Equity can....... + More
- 2020 (7) TMI 223
Unable to claim refund of the unclaimed excess TDS amount as the online TRACES portal - seeking a direction to the respondents to remove technical glitches and enable the TRACES portal so that petitioner can file its refund application for the excess Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) deposited by it - HELD THAT:- On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for respondents had stated that in cases like the present, scrutiny and verification of the TDS amount utilised has to be manually done according to the established procedure. Along with the status report, learned counsel for respondents has now placed on record the established procedure. Consequently, petitioner is directed to follow the aforesaid procedure forthwith. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner would follow the aforesaid procedure within t....... + More
- 2020 (7) TMI 222
Disallowance u/s 14A - disallow the expenditure incurred in relation to earning an income which is exempt from payment of tax - substantial question fo law or not? - as per tribunal since the assessee has only invested in private limited, un-listed companies and one of the companies in which the assessee has made investment is its own group concern addition made by the CIT (Appeals) is on the higher side and addition of Rs.Two Lakhs is just and reasonable amount towards disallowance u/s.14A - HELD THAT:- No substantial question of law in the present appeal under Section 260A of the Act. The extent of expenditure to be disallowed under Section 14A of the Act would naturally depend upon the income earned by the Assessee and spending that income and extent of exemption they have drawn. Since the Tribunal has discussed the relevant facts in p....... + More
- 2020 (7) TMI 161
Power to transfer cases u/s 127 - Stay on transfer of case - Period of limitation for passing an assessment - intra-Court appeal - This is a case where the assessment files are being transferred from one city to a neighbouring city hardly 158 kms. away, in the same State. What inconvenience can this cause to V.V. Minerals No.2, especially when they have business and offices in several cities? Held That:- We are aware that Section 127 of the IT Act does not create any geographical classification. Nevertheless, the judgments of Courts should not be read as Euclid's theorem, but, should be understood in the context in which they were rendered, and a blind and pedantic following of precedents is not expected of Constitutional Courts. First submission of Mr. Lakshmi Narayanan, Mr. Senthil Kumar submitted that V.V. Minerals No.2 had challen....... + More
- 2020 (7) TMI 160
No adjudication on the appeal - Counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department submits that there would not be an aversion to the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, in case an appropriate direction is issued for the adjudication of the appeal - HELD THAT:- Dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to take a call on the appeal Ext.P2 or interim application preferred against the assessment order as expeditiously as possible, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law. Till such time, coercive action if any pertaining to Ext.P1 order is ordered to be kept in abeyance. It is made clear that the interim direction shall be operative only till the adjudication of the appeal.
- 2020 (7) TMI 134
Long term capital gain - section 45(2) applicability - Property received by assessee on partial partition of Hindu Undivided Family - expenses claimed u/s 37(1) - Properties held as stock in trade by the joint family before they were allotted to the respondent on partition - substantial question of law involving in the case or not? - whether tribunal was correct in law in holding that the provisions of Section 45(2) and 49(1) of the Income Tax Act are not applicable in respect to the property received by assessee on partial partition of Hindu Undivided Family and thereby deleting the long term capital gain? - as per tribunal cost of the properties received in partial partition of HUF to be adopted as claimed by the assessee under Section 37 (1) of the Income Tax Act as deduction while computing the income under the head ‘Profit and ....... + More
- 2020 (7) TMI 133
Time limit for completion of assessment and reassessment u/s 153 - Fresh Order passed in remand proceedings - whether order passed by the assessing officer is beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 153(2A)? - HELD THAT:- As perused the submissions of the assessee, the paper book etc. from which it could not derived whether the assessee has received from MPSEB an amount to the extent of 85% of the cost of the equipment. Therefore, obviously, the CITA) has accepted the arguments of the assessee of its face value. The various circumstances as existing in the instant case go to raise a lot of doubt in the entire transaction. One aspect that is absent in the instant case is the enquiry from the State Electricity Board with reference to the sale invoice raised on the assessee, the lease agreement entered into with the asses....... + More
- 2020 (7) TMI 132
Stay petition - Direction to petitioner to pay 20% of the disputed demand pending disposal of the appeals but on an application preferred by the petitioner before the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax [2nd respondent] order was passed reducing the amount to 15% of the disputed demand - HELD THAT:- Petitioner is ready to pay an amount of ₹ 25,00,000/- [Rupees Twenty Five lakhs only] as against the demand in Ext.P6 order pending disposal of the appeals by the Appellate Authority. Taking note of the peculiar situation that existed during the pandemic period when the petitioner’s business has come under a lockdown, we deem it appropriate to dispose this writ petition by directing the 3rd respondent, before whom Ext.P2 series of appeals are pending, to consider and pass orders on the same, after hearing the petitioner, within si....... + More
- 2020 (7) TMI 131
Stay of recovery - petitioner paid an amount equal to 20% of the tax demand - Attachment over the bank accounts of the petitioner - HELD THAT:- Respondents have already recovered an amount of ₹ 1,51,00357/- from the petitioner through garnishee proceedings, and the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the assessment order has been heard finally by the 2nd respondent Appellate Authority, who is expected to pass orders in the appeal in the near future, there need not be a further recovery effected from the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, while upholding the recovery already effected by the respondents for the time being, we deem it to be sufficient for safeguarding the interests of the revenue pending disposal of the appeal by the 2nd respondent. Writ petition is disposed, by directing the respondents to lift the attachme....... + More
- 2020 (7) TMI 103
Time limit for making assessment order - lockdown as well as COVID-19 pandemic - HELD THAT:- This Court finds that the orders dated 19th December, 2019 were passed on the premise that the time limit for making assessment order in the present cases was (as stated by learned counsel for the respondent) 31st December, 2020. However, now it transpires that the time limit for making the assessment orders is 31st March, 2022. Consequently, the orders dated 19th December, 2019 are modified to the effect that the Assessing Officer would expedite the assessment proceedings and would pass the assessment orders at the earliest, but not later than 31st December, 2020. Accordingly, present applications stand disposed of.
- 2020 (7) TMI 73
Withholding of Refund - as per respondents since huge outstanding demand has been pending against the petitioner, the AO has initiated proceedings u/s 241A against the petitioner to withheld the refund after following prescribed procedure laid down in the Act - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that as on today, there is no determination of any further tax liability for any other assessment year which liability can be adjusted against the admitted refundable amount determined by the respondent No.1 assuming Section 241A is applicable or otherwise. Even otherwise no approval is granted by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner as the case may be to withhold the refund up to the date on which the assessment is made. In this case, the assessment order under Section 143(1) for the assessment year 2014-2015 has already attained finality res....... + More
- 2020 (7) TMI 21
Deduction u/s 10A - slump sale - whether purchase of plant and machinery cannot be termed as new in the hands of the purchaser and accordingly, failed to satisfy the condition that not more than 20% of plant and machinery should have been previously used by any other person? - Whether the Tribunal is justified in allowing deduction under Section 10A of I.T. Act ignoring the provisions of sub Section 7A of Section 10A, which provides for continuance of benefit under Section 10A in the hands of a transferee company only in situation of demerger or amalgamation but not in a situation of slump sale? - HELD THAT:- Substantial questions of law No.1 to 3 have already been answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue vide judgments dated 14.11.2018 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in [2018 (11) TMI 1787 - KARNATAKA HIGH COUR....... + More
- 2020 (7) TMI 20
Addition u/s 40A - tribunal held that the travel expenses incurred by employees of the assessee computed based on average basis should be upheld and not on trip vise basis - Whether the tribunal was correct in holding that the payments made by the assessee in cash exceeding ₹ 10,000/- cannot be disallowed by applying Section 40(A)(3) of the Act, as the same were paid in exceptional circumstances? - HELD THAT:- As findings on the issues covered by the aforesaid substantial questions of law are based on proper appreciation of evidence on record. The aforesaid findings of fact can neither be termed as either perverse or arbitrary - no substantial questions of law are involved as framed by this court in the aforesaid questions of law and the same are questions of fact. Therefore, it is not necessary to answer the same as issues covered ....... + More
- 2020 (6) TMI 701
Computation of deduction u/s 10A - re-allocation of common expenses between 10A and non 10A units made by the assessing officer based on the order of the tribunal dated 18.11.2005 in the assessee's case for the Assessment year 1999-2000 - HELD THAT:- The aforesaid question of law has already been answered by a Bench of this Court in [2013 (11) TMI 1766 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT]. It is further pointed out that the decision passed by the Tribunal has been affirmed by a Bench of this Court in the aforesaid decision. - Decided in favour of assessee.
- 2020 (6) TMI 642
Benefit of Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme - amount of penalty and interest payable by the petitioner under Section 220(2) read with Sections 271(1)(a), 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) was computed @ 50% as due and payable by the petitioner under the KVSS - HELD THAT:- Since the liability of the petitioner for the assessment year 1987-88 against the tax demand of ₹ 3,11,206.00 being crystallized, the petitioner was called upon to pay interest and penalty @ 50% as determined at ₹ 6,16,838.00 over and above the aforesaid tax liability of ₹ 3,11,206.00 for the assessment year 1987-88 (which was appropriated by the Income Tax Department). However, if the said tax demand was appropriated and adjusted (as it was received in October 1991), then the petitioner cannot be burdened with payment of penalty and interest in the year 1999, merely be....... + More
- 2020 (6) TMI 638
Deduction u/s. 10A - Tribunal held that the interest earned on deposits kept as margin money is part of the profits derived from export and therefore eligible for deduction in terms of the provisions of Section 10A - HELD THAT:- Parties jointly submitted that the first substantial question of law has been answered by a Full Bench of this Court in 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. HEWLETT PACKARD GLOBAL SOFT LTD. [2017 (11) TMI 205 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] in the favour of assessee. Computing deduction u/s. 10A - losses of EC-1 & EC-2 units cannot be set off against the profits of the EC-3 unit for the purpose of computing deduction - Whether the Tribunal committed an error in not taking into consideration the amendment to Section 10A of the Act by Finance Act 2000 w.e.f. 01.04.2001, the deduction of profits and gains earned by the un....... + More
- 2020 (6) TMI 637
Stay petition - recovery proceedings - condition of deposit of 25% within a period of six months - HELD THAT:- No doubt that in the instant case vide Ext.P3 stay application, petitioner has been directed to pay 25% of the total amount on or before 15.03.2020 and the balance amount has been stayed for a period of six months or till the disposal of the appeal whichever is earlier. The order in writ appeal cannot be said to be in knowledge or notice of CIT Appeal/the assessing officer while exercising power under Section 226(3). But despite that such types of orders are passed imposing a condition of payment of 20% or 25%. Be that as it may. The impugned order of stay Ext.P3 is hereby set aside and the 2nd respondent ie., Commissioner of Income Tax, Kozhikode is directed to hear the appeal within a period of six months as prescribed subject ....... + More
- 2020 (6) TMI 636
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Validity of reason to believe - Undisclosed share transactions - HELD THAT:- As we revert back to the reasons furnished by Respondent No. 2 for re-opening of assessment u/s 147 after referring to the information received following search and seizure action carried out in the premises of Shri Naresh Jain, it was stated that information showed that Petitioner had traded in the shares of M/s. Scan Steels Ltd., and was in receipt of ₹ 23,98,014.00 and therefore, Respondent No. 2 concluded that he had reasons to believe that this amount had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. First of all it would be evident from the materials on record that Petitioner had disclosed the above information to the Assessing Officer in the course of the assessment proceedings. All related details....... + More
........
|
