|
1 |
Income Tax - 2008 - TMI - 4101 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT |
|
|
Once the salary income of the block year has been taxed & tax has been deducted at source, there is no question of holding the income of assessee as the undisclosed income of the block year - held that salary income disclosed by assessee on which tax at source was deducted couldn't have been treated as undisclosed income for the purpose of sec. 158BC - income which is below the taxable limit cannot be taxed merely because the return has not been filed before the date of the search and seizure |
|
|
|
|
2 |
Income Tax - 2008 - TMI - 4100 - MADRAS HIGH COURT |
|
|
Income derived from leasing of the 'commercial property' - it is clear that assessee was only exploiting the property as owner by leasing out the same & realised income by way of rent. Such rental income is liable to be assessed as ""income from house property"" not as ""business income"" - in computation of long term capital gains, fair market price of property fixed by Comm., which has been affirmed by appellate authority requires no re-consideration in this appeal, as it is factual in nature |
|
|
|
|
3 |
Income Tax - 2008 - TMI - 4099 - MADRAS HIGH COURT |
|
|
Assessee, mfg. plastic powder out of plastic granules - company claimed deduction u/s 80IB, on the premise that the goods produced by Assessee company is a product of manufacturing activities - tribunal is justified in holding that process employed is a complex one and not merely limited to pulverisation or crushing, hence impugned finished goods are totally different from raw material - deduction available u/s 80-IB |
|
|
|
|
4 |
Income Tax - 2008 - TMI - 4098 - MADRAS HIGH COURT |
|
|
Correctness of the order passed by Tribunal - when it is admitted that the appeal folder on the file of tribunal, did not contain the additional ground, necessarily this petition is required to be rejected and rightly the Tribunal has rejected the petition - If the revenue is entitled to file an appeal by raising the issue as to the allowability of Section 80IA under the statute, it is well open to the revenue to do so, if they so advised - appeal is dismissed as no question of law is involved |
|
|
|
|
5 |
Income Tax - 2008 - TMI - 4083 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT |
|
|
Co-operative Labour So.- Exemption can't be granted merely because in the earlier years assessee had got exemption- hence exemption u/s 80P (2)(a)(vi) is denied as each AY is independent - revenue is not required to disclose the reason to assessee before taking his case under scrutiny - since account books of assessee had been rejected & estimate of net profit rate was made @ 8% - tribunal has already reduced it to 6% of gross receipt, hence HC not find any good reason to substitute the same |
|
|
|
|
6 |
Income Tax - 2008 - TMI - 4082 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT |
|
|
On basis of definition of export turnover & total turnover in sec. 80 HHC(4B) comm.(A) held that the receipts shown by way of development charges does not form part either of export turnover or total turnover - Tribunal erred in law in reversing the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) - hence held that income from development charges & service charges would not fall and the assessee would not be entitled to the benefit u/s 80 HHC(3) and it had to be computed based on 90 per cent. exclusion |
|
|
|
|
7 |
Income Tax - 2008 - TMI - 4081 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT |
|
|
AO used certain materials collected from the bankers of assessee against them, without granting an opportunity to assessee to explain the relevancy of the material - additions were made by AO of money seized during search, on account of undisclosed income - assessee's explanation that impugned amount were withdrawn by him from his bank account is required to be accepted - addition made are liable to be set aside as it is not a case of ""no explanation"" or ""inadequate explanation"" |
|
|
|
|
8 |
Income Tax - 2008 - TMI - 4080 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT |
|
|
It is clear from sec. 254 (2) IT Act that the Tribunal has powers to pass an order within 4 years either to rectify any mistake apparent from the record or amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1) - when the Tribunal cannot pass an order beyond 4 years from the date of the original order, the question of entertaining a petition for rectification beyond 4 years will not arise at all - Tribunal rectification order in favour of revenue is set aside - assessee's appeal allowed |
