Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Liquid Investment Limited, I.T.A.No. 240/2009 vide its order dated 5.10.2010 has clearly held that where High Court has accepted substantial question of law u/s 260A, this itself shows that issue is debatable. Accordingly, no penalty was imposable u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
The documents have been perused. The CLB has noted the mismatching in the questioned and the admitted signatures yet on a perusal of the same and the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent which is to the effect that the signatures of a person do vary at different points of time which submission is not out of context.
It is not disputed that there was an agreement to sell between the assessee and M/s Shinestar Buildcon P Ltd. and in terms of the agreement the assessee received Rs. 18 crores as earnest money. Subsequently, the said earnest money was forfeited by the assessee and the same was claimed as capital receipt.
In the present case, the sole and dominant nature of the activity is education and the Petitioner exists solely for the purposes of imparting education. An incidental surplus which is generated, and which has resulted in additions to the fixed assets is utilized as the balance-sheet would indicate towards upgrading the facilities of the college including for the purchase of library books and the improvement of infrastructure.
It is well established in law that no one can act in judicial capacity if his conduct gives ground for believing that he cannot act with an open mind or impartially. In the present case, we have a reasonable apprehension that the A.O. who has passed the impugned order does not have open mind and, therefore, cannot pass order impartially.
Time limit to file the financial statements in the XBRL mode without any additional fee/penalty has been extended up to 28th February, 2013 or within 30 days from the due date of AGM of the company, whichever is later.
The depreciation u/s 32 is allowed on the actual cost of the assets. The term ‘actual cost’ has been defined in section 43(1) according to which, ‘actual cost’ means ‘the actual cost of the assets to the assessee reduced by that portion of the cost thereof, if any, as has been met directly or indirectly by any other person or authority’. So, the only deduction permissible from the actual cost is the amount, which has been met by any other person or authority.
The amount deposited or invested, as the case may be, above shall not be utilized for any purpose other than for the repayment of debentures maturing during the year referred to above, provided that the amount remaining deposited or invested, as the case may be, shall not at any time fall below 15 per cent of the amount of debentures maturing during the 31St day of March of that year.
Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in coming to the conclusion that when on the ground on which the reopening of assessment is based, no additions are made by the Assessing Officer in the order of assessment, he cannot make additions on some other grounds which did not form part of the reasons recorded by him.
Authorised banks would be permitted to open NRO account of individual/s of Bangladesh nationality without the approval of the Reserve Bank subject to the following conditions:
