Search by Keywords x
contact us contact us | home help



 Welcome Guest | Jul 25 2014
 
Home Skip Navigation Links
Search by Database Expand Search by Database
Skip Navigation Links
Subject Modules Expand Subject Modules
Skip Navigation Links
State Modules Expand State Modules
Skip Navigation Links
Legal Focus Expand Legal Focus
 

Login

  

Free Demo

Database Updates
Search by Database
Resources
Subject Modules

Database updates


Judgments

Shyam Bidi Works vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Kanpur  [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 18 Jul 2014]

Director of Income Tax (International Taxation)-I vs Safmarine Container Lines NV  [BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 17 Jul 2014]

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs HDFC Bank Limited  [BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 17 Jul 2014]

Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Mumbai vs HDFC Bank Limited  [BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 17 Jul 2014]

Pilloo C.J. Cursetjee vs ACIT  [INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 14 Jul 2014]

Sumitomo Corporation India Private Limited vs Addl. CIT  [INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 14 Jul 2014]

Income Tax Officer (TDS) Raipur vs Naya Raipur Development Authority  [CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT, 11 Jul 2014]
Income Tax & Direct Taxes - Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 194LA, 201, 201(1A), 260A - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, ss. 11, 16, 17, 23, 23(2), 4, 6 - Land acquisition - Tax - Liability - Naya Raipur Development Authority/Assessee - Assessee acquired land and paid consideration to land owners - No tax was deducted at source/TDS - Assessing Officer issued notices to Assessee - Assessee filed its return denying its liability to deduct TDS as well as applicability - AO passed order - Aggrieved Assessee filed appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the same was dismissed - Assessee filed appeal before Tribunal and the same was allowed - Aggrieved Income Tax Department (Department) filed instant appeal - Whether land acquired by agreement by Assessee was compulsory acquisition within the meaning of s. 194 LA of the Act or not -

Held, there was no dispute between parties that, property was not acquired under the Act and it was acquired only by agreement - In case property was acquired by agreement, then price was not fixed by statute it was settled by parties - Second condition of compulsory acquisition was not satisfied - Acquisition of property by Assessee could not be said to be a compulsory acquisition - Fact that after mutual agreement between parties, price was stated in notification by Assessee, does not make it compulsory acquisition - No one was bound by that - In case of disagreement, Assessee had to proceed under the Act - Here, this was not done all agreed to pay price fixed by mutual agreement - In case of compulsory acquisition seller has neither option to opt out of acquisition nor could he negotiate price - It was fixed by statute or was determined under principles stated therein - Price was neither fixed by statute nor by principles stated therein but was agreed by mutual negotiation - Tribunal rightly held that there was no compulsory acquisition and s. 194 LA of the Act was not applicable - Petition dismissed.


CRM Services India Private Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax  [DELHI HIGH COURT, 11 Jul 2014]

Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central), Kanpur vs Sri Raj Kumar Arora  [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 11 Jul 2014]

DCIT vs Sheetal Behl  [INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 11 Jul 2014]

Jyoti Khera vs DCIT  [INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 11 Jul 2014]

ACIT vs Ful Kant Jha  [INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 11 Jul 2014]

(1) DCIT; (2) Anupam Nagalia vs (1) Anupam Nagalia; (2) DCIT  [INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 11 Jul 2014]

Coromandel Cements Limited, Hyderabad vs Commissioner of Income-tax, A.P-I  [ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 11 Jul 2014]

Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Mumbai vs Hindustan Organics Chemicals Limited, Mumbai  [BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 11 Jul 2014]
(A) Income Tax & Direct Taxes - Income Tax Act, 1961, s.260A - Finance Act, 2003 - Tax computation - Liability - Appeal u/s.260A of 1961 Act was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax against the judgment and order passed by Tribunal - Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal, in law, was right in allowing the claim of the Assessee on account of delayed payments of P.F. Of employees' contribution amounting to Rs.1,82,77,138/- by relying on the decision of SC -

Held, s.43B of 1961 Act and the amendments thereto came up for consideration before the SC in one case - In that case SC inter alia held that the amendments to the said section brought about by 2003 Act with effect from 1-4-2004 were retrospective in nature and would operate from 1-4-1988 - Commissioner of Income Tax v/s Alom Extrusions Ltd., 2009 Indlaw SC 1832 (SC), relied on - Tribunal relying upon the judgment of the SC, had dismissed the Revenue's Appeal and confirmed the order passed by the CIT (Appeals) - In that view of the matter and in view of the fact that SC had expressly held that the amendments to s.43B of Act that were brought about by 2003 Act were retrospective in nature, HC found that Tribunal was fully justified in deleting the addition of Rs.1,82,77,138/- on account of delayed payment of Provident Fund of employees' contribution - Appeal dismissed.

(B)Income Tax & Direct Taxes - Income Tax Act, 1961, s.37(1) - Finance Act, 2003 - Tax computation - Liability - Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal, in law, was right in deleting the disallowance of Rs.10,00,300/- on bond registration charges and allowing the claim of the assessee u/s. 37(1) of 1961 Act -

Held, CIT (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal merely followed the decisions in the case of the very Assessee in the preceding years in deleting the disallowance of Rs.10,00,300/- incurred towards bond registration charges and in view thereof, Tribunal came to the finding that the said expenditure was a revenue expenditure and hence allowable u/s. 37(i) of the 1961 Act - HC was of the view that the finding of Tribunal could not be in any way said to be vitiated on the ground of perversity or any error apparent on the face of the record and therefore did not give rise to any substantial question of law which needed to be answered by HC - Appeal dismissed.


Council of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India vs Ved Prakash Verma and another  [DELHI HIGH COURT, 10 Jul 2014]
Accounts & Audits - Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, s. 21(4) - Misconduct - Removal from the membership - Petitioner filed instant petition and found respondent No.1 Chartered Accountant guilty of misconduct other than any such misconduct as was referred to in s. 21(4) of the Act as it stood prior to amendment with effect from 17-11-2006 - Whether respondent No.1 was to be removed from membership of petitioner institute for period of six months -

Held, prescribed procedure had been followed in conduct of complaint of professional misconduct against respondent no.1 - On perusal of material placed were also satisfied with reasoning aforesaid recorded by Disciplinary Committee of petitioner institute for holding respondent No.1 guilty - Court found the punishment recommended by petitioner to be proportionate to misconduct of which respondent No.1 had been found guilty of - Though jurisdiction of HC u/s. 21(6) of the Act, without any restriction - However, findings of members of Disciplinary Committee of petitioner and views of petitioner were entitled to great weight in light of fact that they were experts with regard to matters pertained to profession of chartered accountants and know intricacies of profession on account of their personal experience - Further, said bodies had been created to maintain high standard of conduct and discipline amongst members of petitioner institute - Thus, unless gross violation or disregard of provisions of the Act or Regulations made there under or of principles of natural justice and fairness was to be found - HC would be slow to interfere with finding of such professional bodies - Thus, it was accordingly accepted recommendation of petitioner institute and remove respondent No.1 from membership of petitioner institute for period of six months - Council of The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v C. H. Padliya and Company and Others 1976 Indlaw MP 9; Chief Controller of Exports, New Delhi v G. P. Acharya 1962 Indlaw CAL 153; The Council Of The Institute Of Chartered Accountants Of v B. Mukherjea 1957 Indlaw SC 54, relied on - Order accordingly.


Mahesh Kumar Goyal and others vs Director of Income Tax (Investigation) and others  [CALCUTTA HIGH COURT, 10 Jul 2014]
Income Tax & Direct Taxes - Income Tax Act, 1961, ss.132(9A) and 132(1) - Tax Computation - Seizure - Sustainability - Petitioners were assessees having income chargeable to tax - It appeared that warrants of authorization dt. 19-8-1998, 21-8-1998 and 31-8-1998 were issued u/s. 132(1) of Act - On 21-8-1998 search and seizure of the office and residential premises of the petitioners were conducted - Articles including cash were seized - Challenge of his clients' was confined to the retention of the articles seized based on s.132(9A) of Act -

Held, considering the provisions of s.132(9A) of Act (as existing in the material time and up to on or before 31-5-2002) held that in case of the articles seized and retained beyond the period of 15 days from the date of seizure, the retention itself would have been illegal and hence the authorized officer could not also ask for extension of time for holding the documents beyond the period - Appeal from that decision having been dismissed by SC, HC was bound to accept interpretation of the said provisions as given in the Madras case - K. V. Krishnaswamy Naidu and Company v Commissioner of Income Tax and Others 1985 Indlaw MAD 118, relied on - Search and seizure carried out in that case was on 16-10-2001, after the introduction of Chapter XIV-B in respect of block search and seizure with effect from 1-6-2001 - There would be an order directing the Revenue to forthwith return the seized articles as detailed in the Panchanama dt. 21-8-1998 being annexure 'E' to the writ petition to the petitioners - Petition allowed.


Dy. Commissioner of Income- tax vs Matrix Enport Holdings Private Limited  [INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 09 Jul 2014]

Asstt. Commissioner of Income- tax vs Bilasraika Sponge Iron India Private Limited  [INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 09 Jul 2014]

Income Tax Officer vs L. R. Bhuvaneshwara Reddy  [INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 09 Jul 2014]

Surasa Green Lands Private Limited vs DCIT  [INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 09 Jul 2014]

Billigiri Agro Farms Private Limited vs DCIT  [INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 09 Jul 2014]

Netravathi Green Fields Private Limited vs DCIT  [INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 09 Jul 2014]

Asst. CIT vs Nava Bharat Ventures (formerly Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys Limited) Hyderabad  [INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 09 Jul 2014]

Kanigiri Agro Farms Private Limited vs DCIT  [INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 09 Jul 2014]



Copyright © 1997-2014 | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer