II. Today's Tenders Info.
-
Haryana State Industrial And Infrastructure Dev. Corpn. Ltd.
PANCHKULAR - HARYANA
(Please click for detail)
-
Institute Of Mathematics And Applications
BHUBNESHWAR - ORISSA
(Please click for detail)
-
Public Health Engineering Department
KOKARAJHAR - ASSAM
(Please click for detail)
III. Judicial Pronouncement
1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - II – Vs. M/S LUBI SUBMERSIBLES LTD., TAX APPEAL NO. 868 OF 2010, DATE OF ORDER 25/07/2011, HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Section 14A : “Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by CIT (A) in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 13,82,778/- made under Section 14A of the Act ?”
Where it is concluded that the funds of the assessee-respondent were mix funds in as much as investment was made in the preceding years and there was no fresh investment during the year under consideration. It also did not agree with the findings of the Assessing Officer that the investment was made by the assessee out of borrowed funds. Thus, from the entire gamut of facts, the Tribunal held that there was sufficient surplus funds available with the assessee to invest and there was no nexus that could be established with the expenditure incurred by the assessee for earning the dividend income. HELD: Logic given for conclusion requires no interference. It was on the basis of evidence which was presented before the Tribunal that the conclusion had been arrived at with regard to availability of the free-funds for investment, and therefore, this Appeal merits no consideration. Accordingly, the present Tax Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(Please click here for judgment)
2. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD – 2, SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 16234 of 2010, Date 24/01/2011, HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
The sole ground for reopening the assessment appears to be the observations of the Revenue Audit Party that the assessee is not eligible for exemption to the tune of Rs.77,40,212/- for the year under reference since, the Assessing Officer has not disallowed the exemption while finalizing the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. Thus, it appears that the belief that income chargeable to tax escaped assessment is that of the Revenue Audit Party and not of the Assessing Officer. In the circumstances, the condition precedent for exercise of powers under section 147 of the Act, namely, that the Assessing Officer should have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, does not appear to be fulfilled in the present case.
(Please click here for judgment)
New User? 
Subscribe Now