|
|
|
| « From the Courts » |
|---|
 Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-9, New Delhi Room No. 357, ARA Centre, E-2 vs. M/s Moets Bar-B-Cue,50, Defence Colony Market, New Delhi 110 024 PAN/GIR NO. : AAAFM7936M | |
| | ADIT, Cir. 1(1), (Intl. Taxation), 204, Drum Shape Building, IP Estate, New Delhi 110 002 vs. Ms. Meena Chopra, P-13, Ground Floor,Malviya Nagar, New Delhi | | CIT vs. Awadh Hotels (P) Ltd (Allahabad High Court) | | BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, HON'BLE, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER | | BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, HON'BLE, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER | | Mehsana Circle Vs Mehsana M/s.Shree Riddhi Corporation 32, Amikunj Society Near Technical School, Kalol | | ITO, Ward 40(3), Room No. 307, Mayur Bhavan, vs. Sh. Mohan Lal Walia, Through L/H Mrs. Prem Walia, G-251, Palam Vihar, Gurgaon, | | M/s. All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd.5th Floor, Diamond Square, C.S.T. Road, Kalina, Santacruz (E),Mumbai – 400 098. | | Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(1), Room No. 413, CR Building, New Delhi vs. Maharani Paints India Pvt. Ltd., TA-3/146-C, Tuglakabad Extn.,New Delhi | | Income Tax Officer, Ward 38(2), Room No. 234A, 2nd floor, CR Bldg., IP Estate, New Delhi vs. Sh. Naresh Kumar Through Legal Heir Sh. Naveen Kumar, 9307, Gaushala Marg, Kishan Ganj Delhi – 110 006 | | Mehru Electrical & Engg. (P) Ltd vs. CIT (Rajasthan High Court) |
|
|
|
|
|
| « In courts, CBDT hikes limits for filing cases against... | Income tax dept to shed largest-litigant tag, mulls raising... » |
Govt likely to challenge ITAT ruling on Bofors case |
|
|
| February, 07th 2011 |
The government is likely to challenge the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ruling on Bofors case in the Delhi High Court for its remarks against the Income Tax department.
Though government was not a direct party in the case, based on the opinion of Attorney General Ghoolam Vahanvati, the Law Ministry is understood to have asked the Finance Ministry to challenge the ITAT ruling as it contained certain remarks against the Income Tax department.
The tribunal had said that commissions were paid to late Win Chaddha and Italian businessman Ottavio Quattrocchi in the Bofors gun deal in the nineties.
"In our view, to enforce the rule of law, these steps were desirable to bring all the relevant income tax violations to the logical end by the income tax department. Inaction in this regard may lead to a non-existent undesirable and detrimental notion that India is a soft state and one can meddle with its tax laws with impunity," the tribunal had said in its 98-page order.
Vahanvati is learnt to have told the Law Ministry that the Income Tax department, which comes under the Finance Ministry, should challenge the ITAT order in the Delhi High Court for removal of the remarks by the tribunal against the Income Tax department in its December, 2010 order.
The appeal will be restricted to the strictures against the I-T department only. It will not touch upon the issue of any private person who had approached the tribunal on taxation matters.
The tribunal in a ruling on an appeal filed by Chaddha's son, Hersh W Chaddha had concluded the arms dealer had got Rs 52.6 crore as kickbacks and Quattrocchi got USD seven million (around Rs 13 crore).
In response to a reference from the Finance Ministry, the AG is learnt to have stated the tribunal had overstepped its jurisdiction.
|
|
|
