Indian Chamber of Commerce vs. ITO (ITAT Kolkata)
S. 2(15)/ 11: Entire
law on what is "charitable purpose" and scope of Proviso inserted by
Finance (No.2) Act 2009 w.r.e.f. 01.04.2009 explained (i) The purpose for which the assessee association, i.e. The Indian Chamber of Commerce, was established is a charitable purpose within the meaning of S. 2(15) of the Act. The assessee is carrying out the said activities which are incidental to the main object of the Association and which are conducted only for the purpose […]
Slum Rehabilitation Authority vs. DDIT (Bombay High
Court)
S. 220(6): Law laid
down on the guidelines that have to be followed while considering a stay
application (i) At the very outset, it must be pointed out that the manner in which the Assessing Officer has disposed of the application for stay by impugned order is in complete breach of the directions of this Court as set out herein above. Besides in any event the tests applied to dispose of the stay […]
Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority vs.
DDIT (Bombay High Court)
S. 220(6): Parameters
to be considered in deciding a stay application laid down The parameters to be considered in deciding stay application as laid down by this Court in KEC International Limited v/s. B. R. Balakrishnan 251 ITR 158; UTI Mutual Funds v/s. ITO 345 ITR 71 and UTI Mutual Fund v/s. ITO in W.P.(L) No.523 of 2013 rendered on 6th March 2013 which can for the purposes […]
Artist Tree Pvt. Ltd vs. CBDT (Bombay High Court)
S. 119(2)(b): The
expression 'genuine hardship' should be construed liberally, particularly in
matters of entertaining of applications seeking condonation of delay. (i) The expression ‘genuine hardship’ came up for consideration of the Supreme Court in case of B.M. Malani (supra), wherein, by reference to New Collins Concise English Dictionary, the Supreme Court accepted the position that ‘genuine’ means not fake or counterfeit, real, not pretending (not bogus or merely a ruse). Further, a genuine hardship would, […]
Allanasons Limited vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court)
S. 147: The words
“failure to disclose material facts" is not a magician's mantra & the
failure to use those words will not by itself oust jurisdiction to reassess if
the reasons as a whole implies a failure to disclose material facts (i) We are of the view that the words “failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment” is not a magician’s mantra which alone would give jurisdiction to reopen an assessment. Just as it would not be open to the revenue to urge that the […]
Nickunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (Bombay
High Court)
S. 147: A writ
petition is not like an appeal where the assessee has a statutory right to
require the Court to entertain the challenge. A writ will be maintained only if
the notice is clearly without jurisdiction & not otherwise We would exercise our writ jurisdiction to interdict a proceeding under Section 148 of the Act seeking to reopen an assessment only when the same is clearly without jurisdiction and not otherwise as a matter of self restraint. We are constrained to reiterate the above long settled position of self restraint in exercise of our […]
Eskay K’n’ IT (India) Ltd vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court)
S. 147/ 150(1): A
"finding" is one that is necessary for the disposal of an appeal in
respect of an assessment of a particular year The issue for our examination is whether there is any finding in the order of the Tribunal which is being given effect to and/or as consequence thereof, the impugned notice has been issued. It is only when the answer to the above question is in the affirmative i.e. there is a finding that the issue […]
No comments:
Post a Comment