Imp CBDT Release Reg Extension Of Due Date For Filing ROI + Imp Verdicts Of Supreme Court And High Court

 

Dear Subscriber,

CBDT Press Release Reg Circulation of Fake order for extension of due date for filing of Audit report and return of Income for Assessment Year 2015-16

It is clarified the order is fraudulent. The Government has not extended the due date for filing of returns and audit report due by 30th September 2015. Tax payer and practitioners are advised not to give any credence to the fraudulent order purportedly signed by one Upmanyu Reddy

Shabina Abraham & Ors vs. Collector of Central Excise (Supreme Court)

Entire law on the taxation of deceased persons and their estate explained in the context of the Income-tax Act and the Central Excise Act

The individual assessee has ordinarily to be a living person and there can be no assessment on a dead person and the assessment is a charge in respect of the income of the previous year and not a charge in respect of the income of the year of assessment as measured by the income of the previous year. Wallace Brothers & Co. Ltd. v Commissioner of Income-tax. By section 24B of the Income-tax Act the legal representatives have, by fiction of law, become assessees as provided in that section but that fiction cannot be extended beyond the object for which it was enacted

Sri S. N. Wadiyar (Dead) Through LR vs. CWT (Supreme Court)

Important principles relating to valuation of property subject to the Land Ceiling Act explained in the context of the Wealth-tax Act

One has to assume that the property in question is saleable in the open market and estimate the price which the assumed willing purchaser would pay for such a property. When the asset is under the clutches of the Ceiling Act and in respect of the said asset/vacant land, the Competent Authority under the Ceiling Act had already determined the maximum compensation of Rs.2 lakhs, how much price such a property would fetch if sold in the open market? We have to keep in mind what a reasonably assumed buyer would pay for such a property if he were to buy the same. Such a property which is going to be taken over by the Government and is awaiting notification under Section 10 of the Act for this purpose, would not fetch more than Rs.2 lakhs as the assumed buyer knows that the moment this property is taken over by the Government, he will receive the compensation of Rs.2 lakhs only. We are not oblivious of those categories of buyers who may buy "disputed properties" by taking risks with the hope that legal proceedings may ultimately be decided in favour of the assessee and in such a eventuality they are going to get much higher value. However, as stated above, hypothetical presumptions of such sales are to be discarded as we have to keep in mind the conduct of a reasonable person and "ordinary way" of the presumptuous sale. When such a presumed buyer is not going to offer more than Rs.2 lakhs, obvious answer is that the estimated price which such asset would fetch if sold in the open market on the valuation date(s) would not be more than Rs.2 lakhs

CIT vs. Vijay Singh Kadan (Delhi High Court)

S. 2(14)(iii)(b): To determine whether the "agricultural land" is situated within 8 km of the municipal limits so as to constitute a "capital asset", the distance has to be measured in terms of the approach road and not by the straight line distance on horizontal plane or as per crow's flight

The Court is of the view that for the purposes of Section 2 (14) (iii) (b) of the Income-tax Act, the distance had to be measured from the agricultural land in question to the outer limit of the municipality by road and not by the straight line or the aerial route. The distance has to be measured from the land in question itself and not from the village in which the land is situated

Regards,

 

Editor,

 

itatonline.org

---------------------

Latest:

P. Satyanarayana Murthy vs. Dist. Inspector of Police (Supreme Court)

Acche Din For Corrupt Babus: Mere possession and recovery of currency notes from an accused is not sufficient to establish an offense under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Proof of demand illegal gratification is essential. Its absence is fatal to the complaint

__._,_.___