Congratulations!

[Valid RSS] This is a valid RSS feed.

Recommendations

This feed is valid, but interoperability with the widest range of feed readers could be improved by implementing the following recommendations.

Source: https://itatonline.org/digest/feed/

  1. <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
  2. xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
  3. xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
  4. xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
  5. xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
  6. xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
  7. xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
  9. xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
  10. xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
  11. >
  12.  
  13. <channel>
  14. <title>Digest of case laws</title>
  15. <atom:link href="https://itatonline.org/digest/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
  16. <link>https://itatonline.org/digest</link>
  17. <description>Online digest of latest case laws</description>
  18. <lastBuildDate>Sun, 29 Dec 2024 06:07:02 +0000</lastBuildDate>
  19. <language>en-US</language>
  20. <sy:updatePeriod>
  21. hourly </sy:updatePeriod>
  22. <sy:updateFrequency>
  23. 1 </sy:updateFrequency>
  24. <generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.7.1</generator>
  25. <site xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">145867742</site> <item>
  26. <title>Infantry Security and Facilities through, proprietor Tukaram M. Surayawanshi v. ITO ( Bom)( HC) www.itatonline.org .</title>
  27. <link>https://itatonline.org/digest/infantry-security-and-facilities-through-proprietor-tukaram-m-surayawanshi-v-ito-bom-hc-www-itatonline-org/</link>
  28. <comments>https://itatonline.org/digest/infantry-security-and-facilities-through-proprietor-tukaram-m-surayawanshi-v-ito-bom-hc-www-itatonline-org/#respond</comments>
  30. <dc:creator><![CDATA[ksalegal]]></dc:creator>
  31. <pubDate>Sun, 29 Dec 2024 06:07:02 +0000</pubDate>
  32. <category><![CDATA[Income-Tax Act]]></category>
  33. <guid isPermaLink="false">https://itatonline.org/digest/infantry-security-and-facilities-through-proprietor-tukaram-m-surayawanshi-v-ito-bom-hc-www-itatonline-org/</guid>
  34.  
  35. <description><![CDATA[ S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record – Review - Statutory dues like the Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance -Payments were made before due date of filing of return – Allowed by the Tribunal – Corporation – Not deposited before due date of respective Acts –  Delay of 92 days in filing miscellaneous application-   Tribunal allowed the miscellaneous application of the Revenue of  the basis of Subsequent Judgement of Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Private Limited  v. CIT  (2022) 448 ITR 518 /290 Taxman 19 ( SC)  - On writ against the  order of the Tribunal allowing the miscellaneous application  of the Revenue is quashed and set  aside - Tribunal cannot review the order based on the subsequent decision of Supreme Court – Tribunal has no power to condone the delay in filing the miscellaneous application. [ S. 2(24)(x),36(1)(va ) 43B ,139(1),  Art. 226 , Civil Procedure Code , 1908 , Order XLVII, Rule 1  . ] ]]></description>
  36. <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The assessing officer  disallowed the certain amounts in regard to the payment of the statutory dues like the Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance Corporation under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income- Tax Act, on the ground that  the payments were not made within the statutory period of respective Acts  ,though the payments were made before due date of filing of return . CIT(A) allowed the claim on the ground that the payments were made before due date of filing of the return . Order of CIT(A) is   affirmed by the Tribunal .  The order of the Tribunal was dated 26 th July 2022.  Subsequently the Honourable Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd  v. CIT  (2022) 448 ITR 518 /290 Taxman 19 ( SC)  held that  the payment is not allowable as deduction unless the payments are made within specified dates of the Respective Acts . The order of the Supreme Court is dated 12 -10 -2022 . The Revenue has filed Miscellaneous application   before the Tribunal to  rectify the order of the Tribunal based on the Judgement of Supreme Court in   Checkmate  Services Pvt Ltd  v. CIT  (2022) 448 ITR 518 /290 Taxman 19 ( SC) .The miscellaneous application of the Revenue was delayed by 92 days . The Tribunal allowed the Miscellaneous application of the Revenue . The petitioner filed writ petition and contended that the Tribunal has no power to condone the delay in  filing the Miscellaneous application and also the Tribunal cannot review the order based on the subsequent decision of Supreme Court .   Allowing the petition the Court held that the Tribunal  was in a patent error in exercising jurisdiction under Section 254(2) and setting a side the original order . Order of the Tribunal is quashed on ground of delay as well as on merits .</p>
  37. <p> </p>
  38. <p><strong> </strong></p>
  39. <p><strong> </strong></p>
  40. <p> </p>
  41. <p><strong> </strong></p>
  42. <p><strong> </strong></p>
  43. <p>Referred  Sanjay Kumar Agrawal v. State Tax Officer (1) and Another 2024) 2 Supreme Court Cases 362. ,  Beghar Foundation v. Justice K. S. Puttaswamy   [2021] 278 Taxman 1. (SC) , CIT  v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [2017] 85 taxmann.com 42 (Bom) (HC) ,Dy.CIT  v. ANI Integrated Services Ltd [2024] 162 taxmann.com 889 /207 ITD 91 (Mum)(  Trib). (WP Nos . 17175 of 2024 / 17176 of 2024/17177 of 2024 dt .3-12 -2024 ) (AY. 2017 -18 , 2018 -19 , 2019 -20 )</p>
  44. ]]></content:encoded>
  46. <wfw:commentRss>https://itatonline.org/digest/infantry-security-and-facilities-through-proprietor-tukaram-m-surayawanshi-v-ito-bom-hc-www-itatonline-org/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
  47. <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
  50. <post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">49474</post-id> </item>
  51. <item>
  52. <title>Crompton Greaves Ltd. v. ACIT [2015] 229 Taxman 545 / 275 CTR 49 (Bom) ( HC)</title>
  53. <link>https://itatonline.org/digest/crompton-greaves-ltd-v-acit-2015-229-taxman-545-275-ctr-49-bom-hc/</link>
  54. <comments>https://itatonline.org/digest/crompton-greaves-ltd-v-acit-2015-229-taxman-545-275-ctr-49-bom-hc/#respond</comments>
  56. <dc:creator><![CDATA[ksalegal]]></dc:creator>
  57. <pubDate>Sat, 28 Dec 2024 16:20:14 +0000</pubDate>
  58. <category><![CDATA[Income-Tax Act]]></category>
  59. <guid isPermaLink="false">https://itatonline.org/digest/crompton-greaves-ltd-v-acit-2015-229-taxman-545-275-ctr-49-bom-hc/</guid>
  60.  
  61. <description><![CDATA[S.147: Reassessment – After the expiry of four years -  Amalgamation- Set off of loss – Book profit -Change of opinion – No failure to disclose material facts - Reassessment notice and order disposing the objection is quashed .[ S.115JA , 143(3) , 148 , Art . 226 ] ]]></description>
  62. <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Assessing Officer made an assessment under section 143(3). In doing so, the Assessing Officer clearly took into consideration the disclosures made by the assessee in its return of income. On the said basis, the Assessing Officer allowed the claim of the assessee and set off the loss of PPGM for the financial year 1998-99 against the book profits of the assessee for that financial year for the purposes of determining the assessee&#8217;s MAT liability under section 115JA. After expiry of four years from end of relevant assessment year, the Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings taking a view that assessee&#8217;s claim for set off of loss PPGM against its book profits was wrongly allowed. On writ the Court held that  Assessing Officer considered all relevant materials disclosed by assessee and thereafter allowed assessee&#8217;s claim for set off of loss of company amalgamated with it against its book profits while determining MAT liability, in absence of any failure on assessee&#8217;s part to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for assessment, Assessing Officer could not initiate reassessment proceedings after expiry of four years from end of relevant year merely on basis of change of opinion that aforesaid loss was wrongly set off . ( AY.1999 -2000 )</p>
  63. ]]></content:encoded>
  65. <wfw:commentRss>https://itatonline.org/digest/crompton-greaves-ltd-v-acit-2015-229-taxman-545-275-ctr-49-bom-hc/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
  66. <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
  69. <post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">49472</post-id> </item>
  70. <item>
  71. <title>M.N. Navale (Bigger HUF) v. Somnath M. Wajale, Dy.CIT [2015] 57 taxmann.com 5 (Bom)( HC)</title>
  72. <link>https://itatonline.org/digest/m-n-navale-bigger-huf-v-somnath-m-wajale-dy-cit-2015-57-taxmann-com-5-bom-hc/</link>
  73. <comments>https://itatonline.org/digest/m-n-navale-bigger-huf-v-somnath-m-wajale-dy-cit-2015-57-taxmann-com-5-bom-hc/#respond</comments>
  75. <dc:creator><![CDATA[ksalegal]]></dc:creator>
  76. <pubDate>Sat, 28 Dec 2024 16:00:54 +0000</pubDate>
  77. <category><![CDATA[Income-Tax Act]]></category>
  78. <guid isPermaLink="false">https://itatonline.org/digest/m-n-navale-bigger-huf-v-somnath-m-wajale-dy-cit-2015-57-taxmann-com-5-bom-hc/</guid>
  79.  
  80. <description><![CDATA[S. 132 : Search and seizure – Seizure of Jewellery -  Release of seized assets  -Bank guarantee – Matter pending for final adjudication- Belong to HUF or Karta – Directed to release the jewellery on furnishing of Bank Guarantee .  [ Art . 226 ] ]]></description>
  81. <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In course of search revenue seized jewellery from a premises a larger HUF, a smaller HUF and Karta was present at said premises .  Matter  is pending for final adjudication to decide whether  belong to HUF or Karta . On writ the Court held that  as the  issue of ownership of seized jewellery was a matter which was pending for final adjudication, release of seized jewellery on furnishing of a bank guarantee provided by Karta would not be prejudicial to interest of revenue .  (AY. 1999-2000 to 2009 -10 )</p>
  82. ]]></content:encoded>
  84. <wfw:commentRss>https://itatonline.org/digest/m-n-navale-bigger-huf-v-somnath-m-wajale-dy-cit-2015-57-taxmann-com-5-bom-hc/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
  85. <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
  88. <post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">49470</post-id> </item>
  89. <item>
  90. <title>Goa Cricket Association v. PCIT [2020] 113 taxmann.com 287 (Bom)(HC) .</title>
  91. <link>https://itatonline.org/digest/goa-cricket-association-v-pcit-2020-113-taxmann-com-287-bomhc/</link>
  92. <comments>https://itatonline.org/digest/goa-cricket-association-v-pcit-2020-113-taxmann-com-287-bomhc/#respond</comments>
  94. <dc:creator><![CDATA[ksalegal]]></dc:creator>
  95. <pubDate>Sat, 28 Dec 2024 15:43:20 +0000</pubDate>
  96. <category><![CDATA[Income-Tax Act]]></category>
  97. <guid isPermaLink="false">https://itatonline.org/digest/goa-cricket-association-v-pcit-2020-113-taxmann-com-287-bomhc/</guid>
  98.  
  99. <description><![CDATA[Direct Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2016 , Finance Act, 2016
  100.  
  101. S. 204 : Time and manner of payment – Failure to deposit the tax beyond control of the assessee- Assessee was incapacitated from reasons beyond its control and power, writ of mandamus were to be issued that BCCI should pay tax and interest on behalf of assessee within 180 days .[ Art. 226 ]
  102. ]]></description>
  103. <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Assessee State Cricket Association was affiliated to parent body, BCCI . It used to receive funds from BCCI to carry out activities including payment of tax dues .  Under Direct Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2016, a declaration was made by assessee, income tax department sought to issue certificate on condition that assessee should deposit tax on or before date specified . However, in case of BCCI, Supreme Court had already passed an order injuncting BCCI from paying money to State Cricket Associations . Since assessee was incapacitated from reasons beyond its control and power, writ of mandamus were to be issued that BCCI should pay tax and interest on behalf of assessee within 180 days . (AY. 2006 -07 to 2012-13 )</p>
  104. ]]></content:encoded>
  106. <wfw:commentRss>https://itatonline.org/digest/goa-cricket-association-v-pcit-2020-113-taxmann-com-287-bomhc/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
  107. <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
  110. <post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">49468</post-id> </item>
  111. <item>
  112. <title>Betts India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [2020] 114 taxmann.com 509 (Bom)( HC)</title>
  113. <link>https://itatonline.org/digest/betts-india-p-ltd-v-acit-2020-114-taxmann-com-509-bom-hc/</link>
  114. <comments>https://itatonline.org/digest/betts-india-p-ltd-v-acit-2020-114-taxmann-com-509-bom-hc/#respond</comments>
  116. <dc:creator><![CDATA[ksalegal]]></dc:creator>
  117. <pubDate>Sat, 28 Dec 2024 15:22:27 +0000</pubDate>
  118. <category><![CDATA[Income-Tax Act]]></category>
  119. <guid isPermaLink="false">https://itatonline.org/digest/betts-india-p-ltd-v-acit-2020-114-taxmann-com-509-bom-hc/</guid>
  120.  
  121. <description><![CDATA[S. 80IB: Industrial undertakings – Computation of deduction-  Depreciation-  Mandatory to  deduct depreciation , though not claimed by assessee.[ S. 32 ] ]]></description>
  122. <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dismissing the appeal the Court held that Tribunal was justified in holding that it was mandatory to deduct depreciation allowable under section 32 while determining assessee&#8217;s entitlement to deduction under section 80­IB, even though assessee had not claimed such depreciation .Followed   Scoop Industries (P.) Ltd. v. ITO ( 2007)   289 ITR 195 (Bom)(HC ),  Plastiblends India Ltd. v. Addl. CIT ( 2009) 185 Taxman 187/ 318 ITR 352 (FB)) ( Bom)( HC)</p>
  123. <p> </p>
  124. ]]></content:encoded>
  126. <wfw:commentRss>https://itatonline.org/digest/betts-india-p-ltd-v-acit-2020-114-taxmann-com-509-bom-hc/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
  127. <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
  130. <post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">49466</post-id> </item>
  131. <item>
  132. <title>Neelam Ajit Phatarpekar (Mrs.) v. ACIT [2024] 163 taxmann.com 335 (Bom)( HC)</title>
  133. <link>https://itatonline.org/digest/neelam-ajit-phatarpekar-mrs-v-acit-2024-163-taxmann-com-335-bom-hc/</link>
  134. <comments>https://itatonline.org/digest/neelam-ajit-phatarpekar-mrs-v-acit-2024-163-taxmann-com-335-bom-hc/#respond</comments>
  136. <dc:creator><![CDATA[ksalegal]]></dc:creator>
  137. <pubDate>Sat, 28 Dec 2024 15:11:43 +0000</pubDate>
  138. <category><![CDATA[Tax Laws]]></category>
  139. <guid isPermaLink="false">https://itatonline.org/digest/neelam-ajit-phatarpekar-mrs-v-acit-2024-163-taxmann-com-335-bom-hc/</guid>
  140.  
  141. <description><![CDATA[Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020
  142.  
  143. S. 3:Amount payable by  declarant – Time and manner of payment – Determined tax payable  within 15 days  of receipt of Form -3 - Requirement of paying an additional amount was informed to assessee only by communication dated 1-4-2022, long after extended date of 31-10-2021-  Assessee should not have been denied benefits under DTVSV Act. [ S. 5 , Form No1 , Form No 3,  Form No 4, Art. 226 [
  144. ]]></description>
  145. <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Assessee filed declaration in Form 1 giving particulars of tax arrears and amounts payable in respect of pending income tax dispute for relevant assessment year .  Revenue issued Form 3 determining amounts payable as 14.04 lakhs (if paid on or before 31-3-2021) and Rs.16.26 lakhs (if paid after 31-3-2021) Accordingly, assessee paid amount of Rs.14.04 lakhs on 12-10-2021. However, assessee received a communication that her declaration was null and void as there was delay in filing of Form-4 and last date for payment of tax extended upto 31-10-2021 had also lapsed .  Thereafter, assessee received another communication rejecting assessee’s declaration with new reason that assessee ought to have paid Rs. 16.26 lakhs since such payment was made after 30-9-2021 . On writ the assessee contended that   in response to revised Form 3 made payment of disputed tax determined within 15 days in Form 4 and  also payment made on 12-10-2021 was acknowledged by revenue .  Requirement of paying an additional amount was informed to assessee only by communication dated 1-4-2022, long after the extended date of 31-10-2021 had lapsed  . Allowing the petition the Court held that   fact revenue should have either accepted assessee’s payment made within 15 days from receipt of Form 3 or at least informed assessee that she was required to pay an additional amount on or before 31-10-2021 .Since assessee determined amount payable under VsV Act correctly but had to struggle to get revenue’s determination corrected,  communications rejecting assessee’s declaration is  to be quashed .  The Revenue is directed to accept the declaration , subject to making the payment within 21 days .  (AY. 2017 -18 )</p>
  146. <p><strong> </strong></p>
  147. ]]></content:encoded>
  149. <wfw:commentRss>https://itatonline.org/digest/neelam-ajit-phatarpekar-mrs-v-acit-2024-163-taxmann-com-335-bom-hc/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
  150. <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
  153. <post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">49464</post-id> </item>
  154. <item>
  155. <title>ACIT v. Alfran Construction P. Ltd. [2020] 116 taxmann.com 125 (Bom)( HC)</title>
  156. <link>https://itatonline.org/digest/acit-v-alfran-construction-p-ltd-2020-116-taxmann-com-125-bom-hc/</link>
  157. <comments>https://itatonline.org/digest/acit-v-alfran-construction-p-ltd-2020-116-taxmann-com-125-bom-hc/#respond</comments>
  159. <dc:creator><![CDATA[ksalegal]]></dc:creator>
  160. <pubDate>Sat, 28 Dec 2024 14:54:42 +0000</pubDate>
  161. <category><![CDATA[Income-Tax Act]]></category>
  162. <guid isPermaLink="false">https://itatonline.org/digest/acit-v-alfran-construction-p-ltd-2020-116-taxmann-com-125-bom-hc/</guid>
  163.  
  164. <description><![CDATA[S. 40(a)(ia): Amounts not deductible - Deduction at source -Agreement with co -owners  of land for construction of complex – Allotment of area – Not contractor –Sub -Contractor- Not liable to deduct tax at source .[ S.80G , 194C ] ]]></description>
  165. <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Assessee entered into agreements with owners of land for construction of complex on said land .  Assessing Officer held that  provision of S.  40(a)(ia) would  apply  hence disallowed the expenditure . CIT( A) and Tribunal held that provision  of S.40(a)(ia  is not applicable . On appeal the Court held that the assessee was to be allotted some area in said complex . Assessee was given full liberty to thereafter sell, transfer and convey area in favour of third party . Assessee had assigned its rights in favour of one Prabhu Construction,  Since neither assessee nor  Prabhu Construction   could be styled as contractors, it was obvious that provisions of section 194C were not attracted in instant case. Since provisions of section 194C were not applicable, consequent provisions of section 40(a)(ia) would also not apply .  Court held that <strong> </strong>Section 194-C of the IT Act refers to any person responsible for paying &#8216;any sum&#8217; to any resident referred to as contractor in the said section for carrying out any work in pursuance of a contract. The expression sum in the context, would mean sum of cash money as was held by the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court in the case of H.H. Sri Rama Verma v. CIT1991 Supp (1) SCC 209, though in the context of the provisions of Section 80G of the IT Act as then stood. The Hon&#8217;ble Apex Court has held that when the language of the provision is plain and clear, the Courts cannot enlarge the scope of the provision by adopting an interpretative process. No disallowance can be made for failure to deduct tax at source  . No substantial question of law .</p>
  166. ]]></content:encoded>
  168. <wfw:commentRss>https://itatonline.org/digest/acit-v-alfran-construction-p-ltd-2020-116-taxmann-com-125-bom-hc/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
  169. <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
  172. <post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">49462</post-id> </item>
  173. <item>
  174. <title>PCIT v. Manoj Parmar (2024) 300 Taxman 76 (Cal.)(HC) Editorial : Manoj Parmar v.UOI (W.P.No. 756 of 2007 dt. 17-3-2023 (Cal)(HC)</title>
  175. <link>https://itatonline.org/digest/pcit-v-manoj-parmar-2024-300-taxman-76-cal-hc-editorial-manoj-parmar-v-uoi-w-p-no-756-of-2007-dt-17-3-2023-calhc/</link>
  176. <comments>https://itatonline.org/digest/pcit-v-manoj-parmar-2024-300-taxman-76-cal-hc-editorial-manoj-parmar-v-uoi-w-p-no-756-of-2007-dt-17-3-2023-calhc/#respond</comments>
  178. <dc:creator><![CDATA[ksalegal]]></dc:creator>
  179. <pubDate>Sat, 28 Dec 2024 13:50:51 +0000</pubDate>
  180. <category><![CDATA[Income-Tax Act]]></category>
  181. <guid isPermaLink="false">https://itatonline.org/digest/pcit-v-manoj-parmar-2024-300-taxman-76-cal-hc-editorial-manoj-parmar-v-uoi-w-p-no-756-of-2007-dt-17-3-2023-calhc/</guid>
  182.  
  183. <description><![CDATA[Article : 226 : Power of High Courts to issue certain writs-Rent-Rent in terms of CPWD revisions for period from 31-1-1994 to 30-6-2021-Single Judge took note of rent which was calculated according to recognized principles of valuation and there was no dispute which required any adjudication in matter, writ petition was maintainable and rightly entertained by Single Judge and directions issued therein deserved to be sustained. [Art. 226] ]]></description>
  184. <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Petitioner (respondent herein) was owner of a building and Income Tax Department had taken said building on rent.  Single Judge of High Court, on writ petition filed by petitioner, directed department to disburse to petitioner arrears of rent in terms of CPWD revisions for period from 31-1-1994 to 30-6-2021. Department filed appeal contending that writ petition was not maintainable. Dismissing the appeal the Court held that  since Single Judge took note of rent which was calculated according to recognized principles of valuation and there was no dispute which required any adjudication in matter, writ petition was maintainable and rightly entertained by Single Judge and directions issued therein deserved to be sustained. Appeal of Revenue is dismissed. </p>
  185. ]]></content:encoded>
  187. <wfw:commentRss>https://itatonline.org/digest/pcit-v-manoj-parmar-2024-300-taxman-76-cal-hc-editorial-manoj-parmar-v-uoi-w-p-no-756-of-2007-dt-17-3-2023-calhc/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
  188. <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
  191. <post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">49460</post-id> </item>
  192. <item>
  193. <title>Aman Pathak v. Chief ITC (2024) 300 Taxman 589 (SC) Editorial : Aman Pathak v. Chief ITC (2024) 166 taxmmann.com 250 (Pat)(HC)</title>
  194. <link>https://itatonline.org/digest/aman-pathak-v-chief-itc-2024-300-taxman-589-sc-editorial-aman-pathak-v-chief-itc-2024-166-taxmmann-com-250-pathc/</link>
  195. <comments>https://itatonline.org/digest/aman-pathak-v-chief-itc-2024-300-taxman-589-sc-editorial-aman-pathak-v-chief-itc-2024-166-taxmmann-com-250-pathc/#respond</comments>
  197. <dc:creator><![CDATA[ksalegal]]></dc:creator>
  198. <pubDate>Sat, 28 Dec 2024 13:50:19 +0000</pubDate>
  199. <category><![CDATA[Income-Tax Act]]></category>
  200. <guid isPermaLink="false">https://itatonline.org/digest/aman-pathak-v-chief-itc-2024-300-taxman-589-sc-editorial-aman-pathak-v-chief-itc-2024-166-taxmmann-com-250-pathc/</guid>
  201.  
  202. <description><![CDATA[Constitution of India.
  203.  
  204. Article 136 : Special Leave to appeal by the Supreme Court-Lease of premises-Bid disqualified-Building Hiring Committee, which assessed premises suitability through technical bids and an on-site visit-Disqualification is held to be justified-Writ petition is dismissed-SLP is dismissed.
  205. ]]></description>
  206. <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong> </strong>Assessee&#8217;s family rented out certain property to Income Tax Department for office space since 1999.  Lease agreements renewed several times, with last agreement ending on March 31, 2024. Income Tax Department published notice for new office space and assessee submitted bid, but was disqualified.  Assessee filed writ application for challenging Income Tax Department&#8217;s decision to vacate leased premises and contended that Income Tax Department had rented property for over 24 years and decided to vacate it without justification and had not explained why his technical bid was rejected.  It was noted that assessee did not allege any lease violation and a notice inviting bids for leasing space was published on 16.02.2024, and assessee, after submitting a bid, was disqualified and therefore, having failed, assessee could not challenge premises&#8217; vacation.  Further, bids were evaluated by Building Hiring Committee, which assessed premises&#8217; suitability through technical bids and an on-site visit.  In view of above facts High Court held that there was no merit in assessee’s claim and accordingly, dismissed writ application.  Against said order assessee filed instant SLP. SLP is dismissed.</p>
  207. ]]></content:encoded>
  209. <wfw:commentRss>https://itatonline.org/digest/aman-pathak-v-chief-itc-2024-300-taxman-589-sc-editorial-aman-pathak-v-chief-itc-2024-166-taxmmann-com-250-pathc/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
  210. <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
  213. <post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">49458</post-id> </item>
  214. <item>
  215. <title>Sanjay Vijay Shinde v. Directorate GIT (2024) 300 Taxman 567 (MP)(HC)</title>
  216. <link>https://itatonline.org/digest/sanjay-vijay-shinde-v-directorate-git-2024-300-taxman-567-mphc/</link>
  217. <comments>https://itatonline.org/digest/sanjay-vijay-shinde-v-directorate-git-2024-300-taxman-567-mphc/#respond</comments>
  219. <dc:creator><![CDATA[ksalegal]]></dc:creator>
  220. <pubDate>Sat, 28 Dec 2024 13:49:50 +0000</pubDate>
  221. <category><![CDATA[Income-Tax Act]]></category>
  222. <guid isPermaLink="false">https://itatonline.org/digest/sanjay-vijay-shinde-v-directorate-git-2024-300-taxman-567-mphc/</guid>
  223.  
  224. <description><![CDATA[Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of tax Act, 2015.
  225. S. 50 : Punishment for failure to furnish in return of income, any information about an asset (Including financial interest in any entity) located outside India-Punishment for wilful attempt to evade tax-Anticipatory Bail [S. 3(1), 10, 51, IT Act, 132,Criminal Procedure Code, 1973,  438  
  226. ]]></description>
  227. <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Assessee is  sole director of his company. Authorized Officer conducted a search under section 132 on  company and seized certain documents, which revealed that company had foreign bank account in Singapore from assessment years 2009-10 to 2014-15 and assessee was signatory of bank account and company had not disclosed foreign bank account in income tax returns pertaining to assessment years 2009-10 to 2014-15.  Competent Authority filed a complaint against assessee before Chief Judicial Magistrate under sections 50, 51(1) and 51(2) of Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015.  Assessee filed an application before High Court for grant of anticipatory bail. Court held that in view of submissions of assessee that Black Money Act was not applicable in assessment years 2009-10 to 2014-15 because it came into force and was applicable after 1-4-2016 and there was no need of his custodial interrogation and he was ready to co-operate with trial and furnish adequate surety, it was to be directed that in event of arrest, assessee be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs. 5 lakhs with one solvent surety of like amount. Court directed the   assessee is directed to co-operate with the Income-tax Department in investigation, inquiry or proceedings conducted by the Department, if required. He will further abide by the following conditions:</p>
  228. <ol>
  229. <li>a) assessee shall make himself available for interrogation by the Income-tax Department as and when required;</li>
  230. <li>b) assessee shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to complainant or witnesses;</li>
  231. <li>c) assessee will not leave India without the permission of Trail Court and surrender his passport before the Trial Court.</li>
  232. <li>d) assessee shall not commit similar offence, of which, he is accused or suspected.</li>
  233. </ol>
  234. ]]></content:encoded>
  236. <wfw:commentRss>https://itatonline.org/digest/sanjay-vijay-shinde-v-directorate-git-2024-300-taxman-567-mphc/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
  237. <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
  240. <post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">49456</post-id> </item>
  241. </channel>
  242. </rss>
  243.  

If you would like to create a banner that links to this page (i.e. this validation result), do the following:

  1. Download the "valid RSS" banner.

  2. Upload the image to your own server. (This step is important. Please do not link directly to the image on this server.)

  3. Add this HTML to your page (change the image src attribute if necessary):

If you would like to create a text link instead, here is the URL you can use:

http://www.feedvalidator.org/check.cgi?url=https%3A//itatonline.org/digest/feed/

Home · About · News · Docs · Terms

 
Copyright © 2002-9 Sam Ruby, Mark Pilgrim, Joseph Walton, and Phil Ringnalda