Month: June 2019

FAQ’s on Filing of MCA Form DPT-3

FAQ’s on Filing of MCA Form DPT-3

Case Laws - Benami Property Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax vs M/s. Manpreet Estates LLP 26th March, 2019 Appellate Tribunal Smt. P. Leelavathi (D) by LRS Vs V. Shankarnarayana Rao (D) on 09 April, 2019 Supreme Court .................click here to read further FAQ's on Filing of MCA Form DPT-3 With Companies (Acceptance of Deposits), Amendment Rules, 2019, MCA introduced Form DPT-3 which mandates Filing of Details of Loan with ROC. Language of Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Amendment Rules, 2...

Read more →

M/S. GOLDEN TOBACCO LIMITED VS JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

M/S. GOLDEN TOBACCO LIMITED VS JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

ITAT, MUMBAI M/S. GOLDEN TOBACCO LIMITED VS JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 28-10-2015 ITA No.5858/Mum/2012: Asst.Year 2005-2006 ITA No.5859/Mum/2012: Asst.Year 2006-2007 ITA No.5858/Mum/2012: Asst. Year 2005-2006 This appeal is filed by the assessee-company against the order of learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (in short “CIT(A)”) dated 28.06.2012, passed against the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 23.12.2011 for assessment year 2005-2006. The assessee-company has filed n...

Read more →

SH. ANUGRAH VARSHNEY, VS ITO

SH. ANUGRAH VARSHNEY, VS ITO

ITAT, AGRA SH. ANUGRAH VARSHNEY, VS ITO 05 /04/ 2016 ITA No.134/Ag/2014 Assessment Year: 2003-2004 This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A) Muzaffar Nagar dt. 20/01/2014. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1.That the Hon’ble C.I.T (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the reassessment order passed u/s 147/143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 even when no addition has been made on the issue which was recorded in reasons to believe fo...

Read more →

M/S. P. G. & W. SAWOO PVT. LTD. & ANR. VS ACIT

M/S. P. G. & W. SAWOO PVT. LTD. & ANR. VS ACIT

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA M/S. P. G. & W. SAWOO PVT. LTD. & ANR. VS ACIT 16-04-2016 CIVIL APPEAL NO(S) 4091 OF 2016 1. Leave granted. 2. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the relevant material. 3. The short question that arises for determination in this appeal is the validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act (for short, 'the Act') seeking to reopen the concluded assessment of the appellant-assessee for the assessment year 1989-1990 (for the period of 21...

Read more →

BOMBAY, HIGH COURT

BOMBAY, HIGH COURT

BOMBAY, HIGH COURT M/S. AMAYA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD VS ITO 20-04-2016 W P NO. 787 OF 2016 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the notice dated 30th March, 2015 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The impugned notice seeks to reopen the assessment for Assessment Year 2008­09. 2. The impugned notice dated 30th March, 2015 issued under Section 148 of the Act intimated to the petitioner that the Assessing Officer has reason to beli...

Read more →

M/S BANKE BIHARI PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. Vs. ITO

M/S BANKE BIHARI PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. Vs. ITO

ITAT, DELHI M/S BANKE BIHARI PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. Vs. ITO 22-04-2016 ITA No. 5128/Del/2015 The Assessee has filed the Appeal against the Order dated 26.5.2015 of the Ld. CIT(A)-2, New Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2006-07 and raised the following grounds:- 1. That having regard to fact and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts by not accepting the assessee's submission that, in any case, and in any view of matter, the notice u/s 147 is barred by limitation an...

Read more →

M/S. UJAGAR HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., VS. ITO

M/S. UJAGAR HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., VS. ITO

ITAT, DELHI M/S. UJAGAR HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., VS. ITO 16-05-2016 ITA No. 2205/Del/2015 This appeal of the assessee is directed against order dated 16/02/2015 of learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)-22, New Delhi for assessment year 2006-07 raising following grounds: 1. That the notice issued u/s 148 and the assessment order passed in pursuance to said notice are illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 2. That in view of facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) failed...

Read more →

DELHI, HIGH COURT

DELHI, HIGH COURT

DELHI, HIGH COURT ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED VS ADIT 16-05-2016 W.P.(C) 2385/2013 & CM 4517/2013 1. The Petitioner, Adobe Systems Incorporated (hereafter the 'Assessee'), has preferred the present petitions under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, impugning three separate notices dated 30th March, 2011 (hereafter „the impugned notices‟) issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the, Act‟) for Assessment Years (AYs) 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 respectively. T...

Read more →

DELHI, HIGH COURT

DELHI, HIGH COURT

DELHI, HIGH COURT INDU LATA RANGWALA VS DCIT, DELHI 18-05-2016 W.P.(C) 1393/2002 1. The challenge in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the impugned notice dated 25th June/6th July 2001 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 16 (2), New Delhi (Respondent herein) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟) seeking to reopen the assessment of the Petitioner, Ms. Indu Lata Rangwala, for the Assessment Year („AY‟) 1999-2000. A further ch...

Read more →

ITAT, DELHI RAJAT SHUBRA CHATTERJI, VS. ACIT

ITAT, DELHI RAJAT SHUBRA CHATTERJI, VS. ACIT

ITAT, DELHI RAJAT SHUBRA CHATTERJI, VS. ACIT 20.05.2016 ITA No. 2430/Del/2015 The assessee has questioned first appellate order on the following grounds: 1. That Learned CIT(Appeals) has erred on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, in confirming the action of the A.O. of reopening of assessment under sec. 148 of the Income- tax Act, 1961. 2. That Learned CIT(Appeals) has erred on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, in confirming the addition of Rs.2,00,000 (...

Read more →