Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Case Laws
Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise HC Income Tax - HC
Law
Court
Citation -
Landmark
Order by
 

 

Income Tax - High Court - Case Laws

Showing 41 to 60 of 45892 Records

  • 2018 (2) TMI 603 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

    Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) IV Versus Ajitnath Hi-Tech Builders Pvt. Ltd., Lodha Properties Development Pvt. Ltd., Lodha Crown Buildmart Pvt. Ltd., Lodha Builders Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Adinath Builders Pvt. Ltd., Asthavinayak Real Estate Pvt. Ltd.

    Penalty u/s 271D - failure to comply with Section 269SS - reasonable cause u/s 273B for entering into such transactions through journal entries - Tribunal holds that the failure to comply with Section 269SS was on account of reasonable cause on the part of the respondents - Held that - In the present facts, the period during which the journal entries were made by the respondents was in the previous year relevant to the Assessment Year 200910 i.e........ + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 602 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

    M/s. Navodaya Education Trust, Sri. Sunki Rajender Reddy, Smt. Swathi Rajender Reddy, Smt. Sunki Yashodhara Reddy, Smt. V. Suma Versus Union of India, Director General of Income Tax (Inv)

    Exemption under Section 10(23-C)(vi) denial - non charitable activities - withdrawal of approval - Held that - There was ample material on record to establish that the petitioner Trust had indulged in illegal activities and could not be said to be existing purely for Educational purposes, and rather various other business activities of the said family of Trustees and their money was passing through the cover and shields of the Books of Accounts o....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 519 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

    Principal Commissioner of INC Versus Reliable Express

    Addition on account of receipts not recorded in the books of accounts - Held that - Tribunal came to correct conclusion that the Commissioner, Income Tax (Appeal) has rightly granted part relief to the assessee as both the service and escort charges were shown separately in profit and loss account on net basis. - Dis-allowance out of certain expenses on the basis of certain discrepancies found therein - A.O. has disallowed a percentage of such ex....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 518 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

    The Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad Versus M/s. C.N. Builders & Developers

    Claiming deduction u/s. 80IB (10) - whether disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) cannot be regarded as increase in profit of the assessee s business on which deduction u/s 80IC would be allowable? - Held that - Tribunal had held that the disallowance was not justified. The Revenue complained that the Tribunal was not justified and failed to appreciate that this disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) cannot be regarded as increase in profit of the a....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 517 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

    Amar Jewellers Limited Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

    Reopening of assessment - eligible reasons to believe - proof of accommodation entries - Held that - A plain reading of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment reveals that the basis for formation of belief that the transaction made by the assessee with M/s Shreeji Trading Company is bogus in nature is that Shri Anil Kumar Jain and Shri Pravin Kumar Jain admitted to carrying on the business of giving accommodation entries in the names o....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 516 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) (Exemptions) , Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions)

    Expiry of the period for filing an appeal - Interest u/s 220(2) - Held that - As against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 27.12.2017, the petitioner has an effective alternate remedy of an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The time limit for preferring an appeal is 60 days from the date on which the order passed by the CIT(Appeals) was received by the petitioner Board. According to the learned coun....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 515 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT

    Harish Kumar Gupta Versus Chief Commissioner, Income Tax & others

    Reduction or waiver of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C - rectification of mistake - Held that - In the present case, the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued by the ITO on 19.8.2002 calling for return of income by 26.8.2002. Thereafter, again the notices were issued on 9.9.2002 and 17.10.2002. Thus, it cannot be said that the return could not be filed due to unavoidable circumstances. In totality, the petitioner s case is not covered in any o....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 514 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    C. Nedumudikilli Versus The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

    Revision u/s 264 in favor of assessee - CIT rejected the application - condonation of delay - period of limitation - Held that - The time taken for prosecuting these matters, some of which, was at the instance of the Department and some at the instance of the petitioner, has to be necessarily excluded while computing limitation for exercise of power under Section 264. This is for, more than one reason, firstly, the petitioner cannot be shut out f....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 513 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

    Apollo Tyres Ltd. Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax (International Taxation)

    Revision u/s 263 - subsequent Treaty will automatically apply to the present India- Netherlands DTAA also - Held that - This Court is of the view that the impugned order passed by the CIT (IT) under Section 264 of the Act on 30.3.2016 cannot hold the field and the same deserves to be set aside. - As far as the issue of there being a requirement of issuing a separate Notification for enforcing the later Treaty with another OECD country, viz., Finl....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 443 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-9 Versus M/s. Wns Mortgage Services Pvt. Ltd.

    Deduction claimed by the assessee/respondent u/s 10A - foreign inward remittances received were held not to constitute income qualifying for deduction under Section 10A - Held that - It is quite apparent that customized electronic data or product or service clearly falls within the description of an activity that qualifies for deduction under Section 10A. The lower authorities, we also note this, have relied upon certain other decisions, which ta....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 442 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

    Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4 Versus M/s Sahjanand Laser Technology Ltd.

    Claim for deduction u/s 10A - Tribunal allowed partial claim - Held that - The conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal regarding the claim of the assessee under section 10A of the Act is based upon concurrent findings of fact recorded by it after appreciating the material on record. Under the circumstances, the said ground of appeal being based purely upon the findings of fact recorded after appreciation of the evidence on record, in the absence of....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 441 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

    Well Bore Engineering Co Versus Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5 (2) or His Successor

    Reopening of assessment - validity of notice issues - eligible reasons to believe - Addition u/s 40A - Held that - The first condition is not attracted inasmuch as there is no allegation that the petitioner has failed to file a return, as contemplated in the proviso. Insofar as the second condition is concerned, on a perusal of the reasons recorded, it is evident that there is not even a whisper therein as regards any failure on the part of the p....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 440 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

    Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Surat Versus Banco Aluminium Ltd.

    Disallowance made u/s 80IA(4) - captive power plants of the assessee were not separate undertakings, profits from them being notional,and hence, not included in gross total income - Tribunal deleted the disallowance - Held that - Order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) that denial under section 80IA on the ground that captive power plants of the assessee were not separate undertakings, profits from them being notional,and hence, not included i....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 439 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

    JAYDEEPKUMAR DHIRAJLAL THAKKAR Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER

    Reopening of assessment - assessment against deceased person - liability of Legal representatives - Held that - As the original assessee viz. father of the petitioner passed away on 19.08.2012. The petitioner had informed the revenue authorities about the same in the year 2013. The authorities were very well aware that the petitioner is the heir and legal representative of the deceased assessee, despite which, more than four years after the death....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 438 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    Annamalai University Versus The Income Tax Officer

    Exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) - Reopening of assessment - Held that - The assessee is entitled to seek reasons for reopening of the assessment and if such request is made, the assessing officer is bound to furnish the reasons for reopening and on receipt of the reasons for reopening, the petitioner is entitled to submit their objections, which have to be dealt with by the assessing officer and an order has to be passed thereof. It is thereafter open ....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 368 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

    Valsad District Central Co-Op. Bank Limited Versus Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax

    Reopening of assessment - failure on part of the assessee to disclose true and full facts - contribution made towards the fund and the agreement of the LIC to manage the fund - Held that - In the present case, the petitioner had raised a claim and had also placed all necessary computation on record in connection with such a claim. It is of course true that the contribution to the gratuity scheme itself was not sufficient to enable an assessee to ....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 355 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

    Giriraj Steel Versus Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

    Reopening of assessment - validity of reasons to believe - computation of income as NIL - Held that - The assessment order clearly reveals that a detailed questionnaire had been issued to the assessee along with the notice under section 142(1). The submissions of details and explanation furnished by the petitioner clearly show that it has explained that the firm was converted into a company with all assets and liabilities and that the profit earn....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 354 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

    Bharatmaiya Memorial Foundation Versus Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) 2, Ahmedabad

    Reopening of assessment - validity of reasons to believe - non deciding the objections raised by the petitioners - time line for submission of objections and deciding the same - Held that - Court has set out a time line for submission of objections and deciding the same. However, at the same time, the court has also clarified that it would not mean that if in either case, the assessee misses the time limit, the procedure provided by the Supreme C....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 353 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    Commissioner of Gift Tax Versus Ramesh Suri

    Gift in pursuance of a family settlement - Whether a transaction involving transfer of shares can constitute a gift under section 2(xii) r.w.s. 4 of the Gift Tax Act in cases where the price paid for such transfer is proved to be in excess of the actual market price of the shares so transferred? - Held that - The provisions of gift tax would ordinarily not apply to share transfers or transfer of property, as part of it is to effectuate a settleme....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 352 - KERALA HIGH COURT

    Dr. P. Sasikumar Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) , Kochi

    Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - additions on tax evasion - Held that - Additions made is not on a mere estimation. Only on the search and seizure and the subsequent statement from the assessee conceding a profit margin, not clearly stated that the addition was made by the Assessing Officer. Neither the assessee nor their supplier could offer a satisfactory explanation for the low profit conceded of the sale of lenses. - This is the incriminating evidence....... + More


3........
 
 
 
Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version