In the judgment of the case – N. Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu, delivered on February 3, 2021, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, consisting of Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and M.R.Shah, has in its ruling very unambiguously st..
The petition was dismissed on the grounds that under Section 37 of the Act, the High Court considered the matter at length, and held that while interpreting the terms of the contract, no reasonable person could have arrived at a different conclusion ..
The court held that there are two tests to be satisfied for determining the question of who is a necessary party..
Under the constitutional set-up, no person may be deprived of his right or liberty except in due course of and by authority of law: if a member of the executive seeks to deprive a citizen of his right or liberty otherwise than in exercise of power de..
Upon hearing the parties to the case the Court affirmed the view of the HC and held that, a complete exclusion of general public will amount to violation of Article 25 therefore the temple authorities may be permitted to exclude general public only i..
The Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court which was passed in favour of the Respondents and upheld the decision of the trial court. It was held that the current facts and circumstances raised grave concern over the genuineness over the ..
In this order the ITAT has discussed and decided that performance bonus cannot be treated as salary for the purpose of calculation of exemption of HRA under section 10(13A);..
The Hon’ble CESTAT, Mumbai held that reimbursement of the cost of obtaining and employing resources/certain expenses incurred by the Appellant on the behalf of the Group Companies cannot be regarded as consideration flowing to the Appellant towards t..
The Hon’ble AAR, after detailed discussion, held that: The phrase 'grant of license to use the system on a non-exclusive basis' is used for the reason that the proprietary/intellectual property used in the system is utilized by the Applicant in othe..
The Hon’ble High Court of Patna held as under: The ‘Governmental authority’ as defined in the Notification dated January 30, 2014, means an authority or a board or any other body set up by an Act of Parliament or State Legislature;..
Section 234E of the Income Tax Act,1961 is intravires the Constitution of India. The said Section 234E does not violate any provision of the Constitution of India. Delay in furnishing TDS Returns/Statements increases the work burden of the Department..
The assessee is a trustee in three different trusts. CIT(A) held that the trusts were not valid trusts since they did not come into existence in accordance with Section 6 of Indian Trusts Act” and its income should be taxed in hands of all the truste..
The bench comprising of Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan and Justice A.K. Sikri dismissed the discharge plea of Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J. Jayalalitha and her associate S. Sasikalaa and ordered a trial against them for not filing income tax returns for..
In brief the facts are that in this case return of income was filed by the assessee declaring a loss of Rs. 19,906/-. The assessment was completed by the A.O. u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act at an income of Rs. 12,42,412/- by making following disallowance..
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld.CIT(A) has erred in annulling the re-assessment proceedings u/s 147 on the basis of change of opinion by the AO on the issue of ‘allowability of Sponsorship Expenses’ even when the AO did not ..
We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below. On perusal of assessment order, we find that the assessment has been completed under sec. 143(3) of the Act. Notices under sec. 143(2) and/or under sec. 14..
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee company is a financial company under the Interest Tax Act, 1974, liable to tax there under and if yes, then which portion of the income/receipts of the assessee company can be co..
It was fairly conceded by the Ld.AR of the assessee that the issue involved is covered against the assessee by the decision of the special bench of the Tribunal rendered in the case of ACIT vs. Hindustan Mint & Agro Products Pvt. Ltd., as reported in..
In all these three appeals by the assessee, the only ground raised is about the chargeability of Fringe Benefit Tax (FBT) on channel placement charges. The amount of channel placement charges paid by the assessee in the years under appeal is as under..
Ld. Counsel for the assessee contends that assessee’s assessment in question was framed u/s 143(3) making various additions alleging that assessee could not file necessary evidence ignoring the fact that sufficient time was not given to the assessee...