IT : Where Assessing Officer treated income from sale of shares as short-term capital gain, he was not justified in holding that a part of said income arising from sale of bonus shares purchased by assessee subsequently was to be regarded as business income without assigning any justifiable reasons therefor
Friday, 28 February 2014
Instruction specifying minimum tax effect to admit an appeal is applicable to pending cases as well
IT : Where tax effect in appeal filed by revenue before Tribunal was less than amount prescribed by relevant CBDT circular, revenue should not have filed appeal; circular is applicable to pending cases also
Goods deemed to have been sold within State if no endorsement was made on transit pass on exit of ve
CST & VAT : Where there was no endorsement on transit pass at time of alleged exit of vehicle, Department could presume that goods had been sold within State and levy tax and penalty, as assessee had failed to prove otherwise
Income from deposits couldn’t be added to Sahara's income as it was only a custodian of such deposit
IT: Where assessee-firm received deposits from public under some financial schemes, in view of fact that assessee was merely a custodian of deposit and income arose from deposits in form of dividend, interest etc., Tribunal was justified in holding that deposits themselves could not amount to income chargeable to tax
Matter remanded as AO rushed to conclude assessment without waiting for CBDT's decision on related m
IT: Where Assessing Officer in violation of Tribunal's direction to wait for decision of CBDT on assessee's application filed under section 10(23C)(vi), passed assessment order, order so passed was to be set aside and, matter was to be remanded back for disposal afresh
Interest and penalty both were to be levied even if duty was paid prior to issuance of show cause no
Excise & Customs : Interest and penalty can be levied even if assessee has paid duty prior to issuance of show-cause notice
Issue as to levy of Ed. cess on tax payable as per treaty can't be decided in an intimation under se
IT/ILT: In view of order passed in case of Sunil V. Motiani v. ITO (International Taxation) [2013] 59 SOT 37/33 taxmann.com 252, Commissioner (Appeals) rightly held that scope of adjustment under section 143(1) was limited and, therefore, Assessing Officer in terms of said provision could not levy educational cess and surcharge on interest income offered by assessee in accordance with provisions of article 11(2)(b) of India - Singapore DTAA
Respondent-co. couldn’t demand reopening of CLB’s order; HC upheld winding-up of co.
CL : Where division bench in review petition had held that findings and prima facie observations of Company Judge in his order warranting admission of company petition would stand, it was not open to respondent-company to re-agitate or try to reopen order passed by Company Judge insofar as it admited winding up petition
Pressing of loose cotton into cotton bales amounts to manufacture; entitled for section 80-IB deduct
IT : Activity of pressing loose cotton into cotton bales is manufacturing activity entitled to deduction under section 80-IB
Removal of unwanted plant and garbage at residence of manufacturer was not liable to ST as cleaning
Service Tax : Cutting of unwanted grass, plants, etc. in respect of jungle area nearby storehouse and removing of garbage from roads as well as de-silting and checking sewage lines etc. in township and residential premises cannot be charged to service tax under 'cleaning activity services'
Block assessment annulled as allegation of non-disclosure of transaction couldn't be substantiated b
IT : Where entries disclosing transactions were there in books of account which were audited, signed and forwarded to Board of Directors, it was difficult to hold that transactions had not been disclosed to department; entire block assessment was to be annulled
HC rejects liquidator's complaint against directors alleging misfeasance as they resigned prior to w
CL : Where ex-directors of company-in-liquidation had resigned much prior to its winding up, complaint filed against them for acts of misfeasance on basis of truncated annual report was to be dismissed
AO can't use material disclosed in return filed prior to search to make additions in undisclosed inc
IT : For computing undisclosed income, Assessing Officer cannot rely upon material disclosed by assessee in regular return filed prior to search
Cenvat reversals to be made as per due date specified in Rule 8 of CCR
Cenvat Credit : Reversals under rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 on removal of inputs as such are not to be made on 'date of removal' but on due date specified in rule 8(1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and no interest can be demanded if payment is made by such due date
Excess sum paid to sister concern held allowable as both concerns were paying tax at same rate
IT : Where assessee purchased superior quality goods from sister concern at a higher rate but third parties purchased same at a more higher rate, excess payment would be allowable
CLB dismissed petitioner's request for forensic test of allotment docs as he was aware of such allot
CL: Where during pendency of petition filed under sections 397 and 398 of 1956 Act, petitioner sought forensic examination of some documents filed by respondents relating to allotment of shares, in view of fact that allotment of shares had been done over a period of nineteen years and, moreover, respondents had filed statutory reports from time to time as per provisions of Act, it had to be presumed that it was very much in notice of petitioners as and when share allotments were made, and, thus,
Withdrawal over a period of 3 years to redeposit it in bank a/c isn't valid argument; HC affirms sec
IT : Where Assessing Officer issued on assessee a notice under section 142(1) on 30-8-2007 calling upon him to furnish return for assessment year 2005-06, in view of insertion of proviso in clause (i) of section 142(1) by Finance Act, 2006, with retrospective effect from 1-4-1990, said notice was issued well within period of limitation
No promissory estoppel, if grant of export rebate for earlier period was contrary to law
Excise & Custom : Where export rebate was available only in respect of 'cotton quilts', same could not be allowed for 'quilt covers' even if same was allowed contrary to law for earlier periods, as there cannot be estoppel as to contravention of law
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)