Join our webinar on Faceless Tax Assessments under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Learn concepts, challenges, and solutions from expert CA Hari Agarwal, FCA.
The assessment in the instant case was re-opened on the ground that the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for AY 2006-07 had reversed the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the assessee’s case for AY 2005-06 whereby the Special Bench held that the commission of Rs.1 .20 crores to the three Directors was in lieu of dividend and the same was not allowable as deduction under Section 36(1)(ii).
Issue- Whether while computing the capital gain, exemption available under the head Capital Gain should be given effect and then only the provisions for set off and carry forward of losses should be applied under the Act?
The assessee’s contention is that the provision made towards the non performance guarantee is more in the nature of warranty. Thus, the company assured quality and performance and on any shortfall agreed for damages making provision based on the performance capacity
Did the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) fall into error in not holding that the loss of Rs. 4,92,71,000/- on account of derivative transaction was a speculative loss, and was entitled to the benefit of Section 73, in view of the Explanation to Section 73 of the Income Tax Act
The assessee has shown Long Term Capital gains during the year at Rs. 3888,313/- which has been accepted by the AO. If the AO was of the firm belief that the assessee is engaged in trading activities in the shares then it should not make any difference if the shares are held more than 12 months
Premature encashment in respect of the Bonds shall be allowed for individual investors in the age group of 60 years and above, subject to submission of document relating to date of birth of the investor in support of age to the satisfaction of the bank, after minimum lock in period from the date of issue as indicated below:-
It is a common case that Satyam Computer Services Ltd. should not be taken into consideration. The tribunal for valid and good reasons has pointed out that Infosys Technologies Ltd. cannot be taken as a comparable in the present case.
AO has not made any discussion regarding the subjects raised by the Ld. CIT u/s. 263 and the AO has mechanically accepted what the assessee wanted him to accept without any application of mind or enquiry. Further, no evidence had been placed that the claim made by assessee was objectively
Liberty India (supra) was a case of non-operational subsidy inasmuch as the subsidy, provided in Liberty India (supra), did not relate to production; whereas the subsidies, in the present set of cases, are operational in nature inasmuch as the subsidies are related to the production
