JAGAN LAMPS LTD. v. ITO The accepting of returned income is not an assessment; hence, it will be incorrect to say that the provisions of section 147 cannot be substituted for verification of correctness of entire information contained in the return of income.
Pooja Bhatt v. DCIT Income derived by the assessee-artist from the exercise of her activity in Canada is taxable only in source country i.e., Canada as per the scheme of taxation contained in the Indo-Canada Treaty; by using the expression “may be taxed in the other State” in Article 18(1) of the said Treaty, the contracting parties permitted only the other State i.e. State of income source and by implication, the State of residence was precluded from taxing such income.
Sunil Sethi v. DCIT- Where there was documentary evidence on record to substantiate the explanation of the assessee that the amount was given for the business purposes of the company, the same could not be considered to be deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee and the provisions of section 2(22)(e) were not applicable.
ACIT v. Prakash L. Shah – The exchange rate difference pertaining to the exports made in the earlier year shall be part of the export turnover of the year in which such export is made provided such sale proceeds of the eligible goods are realized in India within the period of six months from the end of the previous year or within such further period as allowed by the Competent Authority.
It has now been decided that the time period for utilization of the allocated debt limit shall be 11 working days from the date of the allocation.
Permit signing of the electronic contract note with a digital signature so as to make the modified format of the electronic contract note a valid legal document like the physical contract note.
