|
II. Direct Tax Case laws:
1. Commissioner
of Income-tax –II Vs. Surat Vankar Sahakari Sangh Ltd., Tax Appeal No.
1150 of 2013, Date of Order: 17.01.2014, High Court of Gujarat
Whether section deductions u/s 80P to be denied only to Co-operative banks and not to Co-operative society?
Held Yes
It was held
that as per clarification given by CBDT circular No.133 of 2007 dated
9-5-2007 sub-section (4) of section 80P, it will not apply to an
assessee which is not a cooperative bank. In view of such clarification,
the revenues contention that section 80P(4) would exclude not only the
cooperative banks other than those fulfilling the description contained
therein but also credit societies, which are not cooperative banks was
not entertainable. The assessee is admittedly not a credit cooperative
bank but a credit cooperative society. Exclusion clause of sub-section
(4) of section 80P, therefore, would not apply. In the result, tax
appeals are dismissed.
(Please click here for judgment)
2. Ashwani Kumar Goel Vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission, WP (C) No. 2347 of 2008, Date of Order: 10.02.2014, High Court of Delhi
Where at
time of admission of application, no objection as to jurisdiction of
Settlement Commission was raised it would not be permissible to review
order passed by Settlement Commission.
The authority
of a Settlement Commission to make such orders as are necessary in
regard to the matters before it also extends to other matters relating
to the case not covered by the application but referred to in the report
of the Commission. There is also an element of exclusiveness to the
jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission, reiterated by Section
245-F(2). Section 245-E empowers the Settlement Commissions to re-open
any proceedings connected with the case in respect of which assessment
too has been completed. Given these powers, the fact as to whether the
Assessing Officer was in the process of making the assessment or not
becomes irrelevant. If indeed the Assessing Officer had completed the
assessment, the wide nature of the Commission's jurisdiction,
nevertheless, would have allowed to over-ride that assessment order
while framing its order under Section 245-D(4).
(Please click here for judgment)
|
New User? 
Subscribe Now