|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - High Court - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 54910 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.
- 2021 (6) TMI 774 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Levy of penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) - interest payable to the PSUs to assessed as an income of the Respondent depends - HELD THAT:- As decided in [2018 (4) TMI 1473 - SUPREME COURT] the conduct of the parties, as is recorded in the criminal proceedings showing the receipt of amount by the broker, the purpose of receipt and the demand drafts taken by the broker at the instance of the bank are sufficient to prove the fact that the Respondent acted as a broker to the Bank and, hence, the additional interest payable to the PSUs could not be held to be his property or income. The income that has actually accrued to the Respondent is taxable. What income has really occurred to be decided, not by reference to physical receipt of income, but by the receipt of income in reality. Given the fact that the Respondent had acted only as a broker and could n....... + More
- 2021 (6) TMI 771 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Exemption granted u/s 10B - whether approval granted by the STPI under the delegated powers of the Directors of STPI by IMSC is a valid approval for the purpose of claiming exemption under Section 10B? - HELD THAT:- The dispute arises in view of the fact that the assessee is of an opinion that the approval granted by the STPI under the delegated powers of the Directors of STPI by IMSC is a valid approval for the purpose of claiming exemption under Section 10B of the Act. Therefore, the presumption cannot be construed as suppression on the part of the assessee. It is not a mere presumption in the present case by the assessee. The presumption has got a valid reason because the assessee is holding a valid approval obtained from the STPI and the power to grant approval was delegated to the Directors of STPI b....... + More
- 2021 (6) TMI 770 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Entitlement u/s 10B - Valid approval from eligible authority granted or not - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the considered opinion that admittedly, the petitioner obtained an approval from the Software Technology Parks of India and it is an autonomous society under Government of India, Ministry of Communications & Information Technology, Department of Information Technology. The petitioner has obtained the said approval in proceedings dated 17.04.2008. The approval states that the application submitted by the petitioner for setting up of 100% Export Oriented Unit under the Electronic Hardware Technology Park scheme of Government of India has been approved by this office under the delegated powers to the Directors of STPI by IMSC vide MIT letter No.5(100)/93-Export dated 24.06.1993. The approval granted further clarified that the petiti....... + More
- 2021 (6) TMI 645 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Extension of time to dispose of the appeal pending before the tribunal - HELD THAT:- This is a matter moved by the revenue seeking extension of time to dispose of the appeal pending before the tribunal while the same could not be decided within stipulated period pursuant to order dated 20th January, 2021. Several aspects are being referred to by the learned Counsel for revenue. Having regard to the aforesaid, we deem it appropriate to extend the period by a further period of three months from today. Rest of the conditions to continue unaltered.
- 2021 (6) TMI 642 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Deduction u/s 54F - Denial of claim as capital asset transferred was not a long term capital asset in view of Section 2(29A) r.w.s.2(42A) - ITAT allowed deduction - Whether Tribunal erred in treating the asset held by assessee for less than four months as long term capital asset as against stipulation in Sec.2(29A) r.w.s 2(42A) is holding for more than 36 months? - whether Expl.1(b) below sec.2(42A) is applicable and the period of holding of the asset by the previous owner also needs to be considered even though assessee did not receive the asset through gift or will as mentioned in sec.49(i)(ii) but by settlement deed? - HELD THAT:- As decided in The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai - 34 Vs. Smt.Deepa Vijay [2021 (1) TMI 787 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] wherein had done an elaborate factual exercise, gone through the covenants and c....... + More
- 2021 (6) TMI 641 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - reopening on the basis of the material and the impounded documents recovered during the course of survey action undertaken by the Investigation Wing, Surat under Section 133A - disposing of objections of assessee - HELD THAT:- In case of CIT Vs. M/s.Kelvinator of India Limited [2010 (1) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT] it has been held inter alia that the Assessing Officer has power to reopen, provided there is "tangible material" to come to the conclusion that there is an escapement of income from assessment and that reasons must have a live link with the formation of the belief. Our Court has also in similar case, in the case of Aaspas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd. [2017 (6) TMI 557 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] held that if on the basis of information supplied by/from the office of Principal Director of Income Tax (In....... + More
- 2021 (6) TMI 637 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal v/s writ petitions - writ petitioners, strenuously contended that it is the case where the respondents themselves admitted certain vital facts and those admitted facts were not considered by the Assessing Authority and therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set aside - legality of investments - HELD THAT:- When the contentions of petitioners are extracted in the counter-affidavit, that cannot be construed as an admission. By extracting the abovesaid statement in the very same paragraph, the respondents have stated that “the Mauritius Company had simply been used by the UAE Company to hoodwink the taxing authorities in India, whereas actually, it is the UAE Company which has made the investment in the Assessees-Company”. Therefore, the mere contention raised by petitioners regarding the alleged ....... + More
- 2021 (6) TMI 635 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Disallowance of prior period expenses - HELD THAT:- From communication dated 19.10.2010 addressed to the Assessing Officer, it is evident that the claim was made with regard to prior period expenses before the Assessing Officer again. The assessee had filed the written submissions before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in which claim with regard to prior period expenses was made. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had passed the Assessing Officer to submit a remand report, which was submitted by the Assessing Officer. On the basis of material available on record, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the tribunal have allowed the claim with regard to the assessee's prior period expenses. The first substantial question of law is therefore, answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.
- 2021 (6) TMI 634 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Reduction of provision for bad and doubtful debts written back credited to profit and loss account for computation of book profit under Section 115JB - Disallowance of estimated expenses under Section 14A of the Act for computation of book profit under Section 115JB - no notice under Section 143(2) of the Act issued on the revised return - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the first three issues involved in this appeal are covered by decisions of this Court in the case of the assessee as well as in GOKALDAS IMAGES P. LTD.[2020 (11) TMI 345 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT].Therefore, substantial question of law Nos.2 to 5 are answered against the revenue Validity of assessment - absence of notice under Section 143(2) - HELD THAT:- Since the issue with regard to validity of the proceedings on account of absence of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act has no....... + More
- 2021 (6) TMI 593 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Rectification u/s 154 - Provision for bad and doubtful debts is under Section 36 (1) (viia) - HELD THAT:- As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, by invoking Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, the authority cannot re-adjudicate the facts on merits. Disputable facts and circumstances cannot be adjudicated under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act. The learned counsel has pointed out that such an adjudication would cause prejudice to the interest of the assessee. This Court is of the considered opinion that Section 154 cannot be converted as an appeal for entertaining a ground for adjudication of merits or disputable issues. Thus, the scope of Section 154 is undoubtedly limited with reference to the circumstances narrated under the provision itself. This Court is of the considered opinion that even in respect of the ....... + More
- 2021 (6) TMI 589 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Narrow Time frame granted to file reply/objections to the show cause notice-cum-draft assessment order - lockdown situation - HELD THAT:- To our minds, this issue attained greater criticality, from the point of view of the petitioner, as his request for accommodation, which was tendered on 26.04.2021, was not dealt with by the AO and the AO proceeded to pass the impugned assessment order on 27.04.2021. AO could have easily accommodated the petitioner, in view of the fact that the limitation for passing the assessment order stood extended by the Central Board of Direct Taxes till 30.06.2021. We are, thus, of the opinion that given the circumstances, which have been adverted to in the writ petition, the impugned assessment order cannot be sustained, as it compromised the petitioner’s right to effectively contest the position taken by ....... + More
- 2021 (6) TMI 560 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Deduction u/s 80IB - whether the approval of the Project and completion date is as per section 801B(10) of the Act or not? - HELD THAT:- Following the ratio laid down in own case [2013 (11) TMI 1745 - ITAT CHENNAI] and M/S. SANGHVI AND DOSHI ENTERPRISE [2012 (12) TMI 84 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS M/S. VANDANA PROPERTIES, [2012 (4) TMI 54 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VERSUS RADHE DEVELOPERS [2011 (12) TMI 248 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] the questions of law are decided against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee
- 2021 (6) TMI 557 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - disallowance u/s 36(i)(ii) for directors remuneration - Assessee argued absence of any fresh material in the possession of the AO and that too after the expiry of four years - HELD THAT:- For the assessment year 2008-2009, the assessment was sought to be reopened on similar grounds under a similar notice Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) vide order dated 15.12.2017 has dropped the proceeding. Reopening of the completed assessment based on change of opinion has been frowned upon by the Apex Court by its several decisions. The decision cited by the petitioner are squarely applicable facts and circumstances of the case. Even if the matter is remitted back to the respondents to pass a speaking order, no useful purpose would be served as the respondents appear to....... + More
- 2021 (6) TMI 556 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - whether there was true and full disclosure by the petitioner at the time of assessment? - whether the petitioner is entitled to state that the impugned proceedings were on account of change of opinion? - HELD THAT:- Before the assessment was completed, the petitioner’s auditor has clearly stated that the petitioner was trader of rights in films and that the petitioner has not claimed any appreciation and consequently there is no schedule for the same. In the said communication, the auditor has also called upon the respondent to inform as to which of the transactions and which of the agreements were required. It is thereafter the assessment was completed under section 143 (3) on 19.12.2011. Before the assessment order was passed, a personal hearing was also held on 04.08.2011. Though the assessment o....... + More
- 2021 (6) TMI 433 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Validity of assessment - order passed u/s 143(3A) & 143(3B) - challenge to the assessment order is made on the ground that it was passed without jurisdiction - HELD THAT:- In this particular case, the reason that we are proceeding ahead with the matter, is that, we are persuaded by the arguments advanced by Mr. Vohra that the impugned assessment order dated 15.04.2021 could not have been passed under Section 143(3A) and 143(3B) after March 31, 2021, having regard to the provisions of Section 143(3D) of the Act. Petitioner is also right in his contention that the CBDT notification dated 31.03.2021, to which, we have made a reference hereinabove, also says, in effect, the same thing, i.e., that after 01.04.2021, the assessment order could have only have been passed in consonance with the provisions of Section 144B of the Act. We are inc....... + More
- 2021 (6) TMI 430 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Validity of assessment - non issuance of a show cause notice-cum-draft assessment order; which is a mandatory requirement under Section 144B - HELD THAT:- Since this aspect of the matter is not in dispute, we are of the view that the prayers made in the petition have to be allowed. It is ordered accordingly. The impugned assessment order dated 30.04.2021, as also the notice of demand issued under Section 156 of the Act, and notice for initiation of penalty proceedings issued under Section 270A of the Act, of even date, shall stand set aside. Liberty is, however, given to the respondents/revenue to pass a fresh assessment order, albeit, after adhering to the statutory requirements, inter alia, contained in Section 144B of the Act.
- 2021 (6) TMI 410 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Validity of assessment order - Request for personal hearing rejected - Faceless Assessment - HELD THAT:- Given the circumstances, which were put forth by the petitioner in the communication the AO should have, in the very least, dealt with the same, i.e., either rejected the request made or accommodated the petitioner having regard to the circumstances put forth by her. In reaching a conclusion as to which of the two options he/she should opt for, the AO could have asked for necessary supporting material, in case, he/she was under the impression that what was stated in the said communication was only a ruse to impede progress of the matter. Respondent no.1, instead, proceeded to pass the impugned assessment order, dated 26.05.2021, even when the timeframe for passing the assessment order stood extended till 30.06.2021. Therefore, accordin....... + More
- 2021 (6) TMI 409 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - deemed assessment - earlier proceeding initiated was withdrawn - notice under Section 148 was issued before completion of the Assessment was dropped and thereafter, a fresh notice was issued based on the identical reasons - survey under Section 133A - survey revealed undisclosed income in terms of the valuable jewellery and cash - HELD THAT:- Since the petitioner failed to offer amount for payment of Income Tax in his return of income under Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, a notice dated 04.12.2015 was issued to the petitioner under Section 148 - The said notice was issued even before the time for completing the assessment expired on 31.12.2016 i.e, 21 month from the end of the assessment year 2013-14 under Section 153 (1) for the assessment year 2013-14. Having issued the aforesaid notice dated 0....... + More
- 2021 (6) TMI 408 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Revision u/s 263 - denial of deduction u/s 54 in the hands of Individual - Partition of HUF or not - Assessment as a Hindu Undivided Family(HUF) - division of income without physical division of property did not amount to partition under Section 171 - notice u/s 263 as issued primarily on the ground that there was no physical division of the property and therefore the exemption under Section 54 F on sale appeared to be contrary to section 171 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. HELD THAT:- A reading of sub- section 171 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 makes it very clear that it is applicable only where a Hindu family was already assessed as an Hindu Undivided Family(HUF). Otherwise, there is no meaning to the expression “hither to” in Section 171(1). Admittedly, during the lifetime of Shir.A.R.Pandurangan, the family was not assessed as ....... + More
- 2021 (6) TMI 406 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Addition on account of unaccounted interest income on FDs - unaccounted income in gold - Tribunal deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- This Court, vide judgment [2020 (11) TMI 912 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], quashed the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on the ground that the same is cryptic and suffers from non-application of mind and has remitted the same to the Tribunal to consider the substantial question of law Nos. 1 and 2. For the reasons assigned in the aforesaid judgment, the order passed by the Tribunal in respect of Assessment Year 2005-06 [2016 (12) TMI 1856 - ITAT BANGALORE]is quashed and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal to consider the substantial question of law Nos. 1 and 2 afresh by assigning reasons.
........
|
