You are not Logged in

Search CaseLaws Period Wise

Select Period
From :
Till :




SEARCH DETAIL

 
Section 271(1)(c) Penalty under section 271(1)(c) Notice issued by AO without specifying grounds of penalty Validity -- AO had imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c) on assessee, who assailed the same contending that notice issued under section 274 did not specify the grounds on which penalty was imposed, i.e., whether for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars. CIT(A) rejected contention of assessee holding that penalty could not be deleted merely because of a technical error in the show cause notice. Held: From perusal of notice, it was very much obvious that AO did not specify t......
2019 TaxPub(DT) 3297 (Kol-Trib) Indian Marble Traders v. ITO Assessee, Kol-Trib, 2007-08, ITA No. 2645/Kol/2018, 08-May-2019

2019 TaxPub(DT) 3331 (Ahd-Trib) Rajiv Manibhai Patel v. ACIT Assessee, Ahd-Trib, 2011-12, ITA No. 1274/Ahd/2017, 28-Feb-2019

2019 TaxPub(DT) 3332 (Mum-Trib) ITO v. Vijay Dwellers Pvt. Ltd. Against Revenue, Mum-Trib, 2009-10, ITA No. 141/Mum/2018, 30-Jan-2019

2019 TaxPub(DT) 3359 (Mad-HC) Prathyusha Educational Trust v. TRO Mad-HC, 2010-11 & 2011-12, Writ Petition Nos. 4362 and 4367 of 2019 & WMP Nos. 4898, 4906 and 4907 of 2019, 15-Feb-2019

2019 TaxPub(DT) 3363 (Mad-HC) Tharakumari v. ITO Against Assessee, Mad-HC, 2013-14, Tax Case Appeal No. 128 of 2019 & C.M.P. No. 3353 of 2019, 11-Feb-2019

Section 28(i) Business loss Forward contract in foreign currency Export and import business Allowability of Mark to Market loss -- Revenue challenged the order of Tribunal holding that “Mark-to-Market” loss arising on revaluation of forward exchange contract on the closing date of the previous year was not a notional loss and was allowable to assessee. Held: Forward contract in foreign exchange when incidental to carrying on of export and import business of assessee and was entered into to cover up losses, if any, on account of differences in foreign currency valuations, would not be a speculative activity and it would be......
2019 TaxPub(DT) 3366 (Bom-HC) Pr. CIT v. Vishinda Diamonds Appeal Dismissed, Bom-HC, 2009-10, ITA No. 1814 of 2016, 27-Feb-2019

2019 TaxPub(DT) 3701 (Mad-HC) H. Abuthahir v. Dy. CIT Assessee Dismissed, Mad-HC, 2013-14, T.C.A. No. 676 of 2018, 02-Apr-2019

2019 TaxPub(DT) 3372 (Mum-Trib) Devraj Pkyn Iyer Sharma v. ITO Assessee, Mum-Trib, 2008-09, ITA No. 7330/Mum/2016, 05-Mar-2019

Section 194C read with Section 194J Tax deducted at source 194C or 194 Placement fees/carriage fees paid to cable operators/MSO/DTH Operators -- Revenue raised a substantial question of law whether Tribunal was justified in holding that the placement fees/carriage fees paid to Cable Operators/MSO/DTH Operators are payments for work contract covered under section 194C and not fees for technical services under section 194J. Held: Placement fees were paid under the contract between assessee and the cable operators. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, considering the nature of transaction, the argument of assessee that carriage fees or ......
2019 TaxPub(DT) 3659 (Bom-HC) CIT v. Wire & Wireless (India) Ltd. Bom-HC, ITA No. 214 of 2017 with ITA No. 217 of 2017, 22-Apr-2019

Section 69 Income from undisclosed source Addition under section 69 Cash deposit explained by assessee as gift received from his father-in-law and mother-in-law Validity of -- During the year, assessee had declared net profit at the rate of 6.51%. AO observed that assessee had deposited cash in Co-operative Bank on various dates. It was asked to explain the source of the cash deposits. Assessee submitted that the said deposits were out of gift received from her father-in-law and mother-in-law which they received from sale proceed of agricultural land. AO was of the view that burden placed upon assessee under section 69 was not discharged. However, credit was given to ......
2019 TaxPub(DT) 3433 (Pune-Trib) Nishigandha Vishwas Kulkarni v. ITO Against Assessee, Pune-Trib, 2008-09, ITA No. 2787/Pun/2017, 18-Feb-2019