| | |
| |
|  COMPANY CASES (CC) HIGHLIGHTSF Where dishonour of cheque, notice to company sufficient : Krishna Texport and Capital Markets Ltd. v. Ila A. Agrawal p. 241
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
PFA
Case Law: Kroner Investments Limited vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Additions made solely on the basis of AIR information are not sustainable in the eyes of law if the Revenue has not made any enquires to find out whether the AIR information was correct or not
It has been held time and again by this Tribunal that the additions made solely on the basis of AIR information are not sustainable in the eyes of law. If the assessee denies that it is in receipt of income from a particular source, it is for the AO to prove that the assessee has received income as the assessee cannot prove the negative
C I T V Tata Autocomp System Limited Bombay High Court
PFA
Transfer Pricing: Dept is not entitled to challenge the ITAT's decision to determine the interest rate ALP of funds advanced to AE as per Euribor if the earlier ITAT judgements relied upon by ITAT have not been challenged by the Dept
The Revenue has not preferred any appeal against the decision of the Tribunal in "VVF Ltd. Vs. DCIT" (supra) and "DCIT Vs. Tech Mahindra Ltd."(supra) on the above issue. No reason has been shown to us as to why the Revenue seeks to take a different view in respect of the impugned order from that taken in "VVF Ltd. Vs. DCIT" (supra) and "DCIT Vs. Tech Mahindra Ltd."(supra). The Revenue not having filed any appeal, has in fact accepted the decision of the Tribunal in "VVF Ltd. Vs. DCIT" (supra) and "DCIT Vs. Tech Mahindra Ltd."(supra). In view of the above we see no reason to entertain the present appeal as in similar matters the Revenue has accepted the view of the Tribunal which has been relied upon by the impugned order
G T L Limited V A C I T ITAT Mumbai
PFA
PFA
S. 147/151: Non-mentioning in the reasons that approval has been obtained from the CIT vitiates the reopening
Another major discrepancy noticed during the course of arguments is that there is no mention of authorization of a higher authority to initiate the current reassessment proceedings. Since there is no mention of the approval sought from the CIT on the reasons, as recorded by the AO to initiate reassessment proceedings, the entire initiation has been vitiated and become bad in law
Prema Gopal Rao V D C I T I T A T Mumbai
PFA
S. 271(1)(c): Revised ROI filed after issue of s. 143(2) notice amounts to voluntary disclosure if AO has not sought specific notice in the notice
Even though the assessed filed the revised return of income after the receipt of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, yet the admitted fact remains that the assessing officer did not seek any type of particulars in that notice. Hence the mistake in the Long term Capital gain could not have come to the notice of the AO at that point of time, meaning thereby, it should be construed that the assessee has declared the higher amount of Long term capital gain voluntarily upon its detection Read more
DLF's 'one-sided, abusive' buyer agreements anti-competitive; Asserts jurisdiction though Act not enforced
CCI holds that DLF Gurgaon Home Developers Pvt. Ltd. & DLF Home Developers Ltd. (Opposite Parties, 'OPs') have abused their dominant position in the relevant market of 'provision of services for development/sale of residential apartments in Gurgaon', directs cease and desist from indulging in unfair & abusive practices, however, refrains from imposing monetary penalty; Rejects OPs' claim of CCI having no jurisdiction on the matter since the buyers agreement were entered prior to May 20, 2009 (when relevant provisions of Competition Act were not in force) , holds that considering the broader spirit and duty cast by legislature, CCI has jurisdiction; CCI relies on Director General's ('DG') conclusion that buyers agreement contains various unfair, abusive and one-sided clauses relating to project commencement without sanction/approval of the projects, unfair additional demands based on increase of Floor Area Ratio, inordinate delay in completion / possession, forfeiture of amounts in case of cancellation etc.; Opines that OP's conduct in increasing the number of floors, in demanding additional payments pursuant to increase in super-area and arbitrary cancellation of allotment is unfair:CCI
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment