The Assessee owned the property at No. 6, 4th floor, `Sahas’, Veer Savarkar Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400 025. According to the Assessee the aforesaid property had all facilities of being used as a business centre. The Assessee had entered into an agreement dated 10-10-1995 (titled “Agreement for Security Deposit”) whereby the Assessee permitted M/s.
The Petitioner has an industrial unit in the district of Raigad which is a notified backward area. The Government of Maharashtra issued a package scheme of incentives in 1993 by which a scheme for the deferral of sales tax dues was announced. The Petitioner had during the period 1 May 1999 and 31 March 2000 collected an amount of Rs.1,79,68,846/ towards sales tax. Under the scheme the amount was payable in five annual installments commencing from April 2
The Memorandum explaining the provisions of the Finance Bill of 2001 by which sub-section (7) of section 94 was inserted, would make it clear that the requirements that are spelt out in clauses (a),(b) and (c) were intended to be cumulative.
Where an assessment has been made under sub-section (3) of section 143 for the relevant assessment year, no action can be taken after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year unless inter alia there has been a failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment year.
Though the issue raised in these connected appeals filed by the Revenue stands decided in favour of the assessees by Division Bench judgment of this court in SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX reported in 262 ITR 579, the department while arguing these appeals before a Division Bench of this court canvassed against the correctness of the said judgment and the Division Bench on being prima facie satisfied, referred the matter for decision by Full Bench and hence the matter is before us.
The Assessing Officer can invoke the provision of section 80-IA(10) only when there is a close connection between the assessee carrying on eligible business and any other person or for any other reason, the course of business between them is so arranged that the business transacted between them produces to the assessee more than the ordinary profits.
Where the agreement was executed outside India and the delivery of the vessel also took place outside India, by reason of the mere presence of the vessel in India without the volition of Vessel Providing Companies, the source of income cannot be said to be located in India
Mohanlal Parekh. The appellant firm entered into a development agreement on 25.4.2003 with Hickson & Dadajee P.Ltd a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 to develop property situated at Village Pahadi, Goregaon (E) owed by M/s Hickson & Dadajee P.Ltd In pursuance of said development agreement, the assessee firm undertook to construct residential building viz., “Acmee Armay” to be residential area constructed at 60,000 sq.ft. approx. comprising 200 flats in 7 wings in ground plus upper floors to be approved. The said residential building has to be constru
The transfer of equity shares in Indian company would not be regarded as transfer within the meaning of section 45 read with section 47(iv) of the Income-tax Act and hence the gains if any arising on transfer would not be taxable in India The applicant has no liability to pay capital gains tax under section 45 and minimum alternate tax under section 115JB of the Ac
Where the supervisory activity of each project of the assessee-company was for less than 75 days, the income from the supervision and installation of the plant cannot be treated as income of the PE; since there was no PE of the assessee, there is no question for treating the income towards supervision, erection and commissioning of a plant as an income of the assessee taxable in India
