We find from the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the argument of the assessee that if the addition is confirmed, if any trading result should be allowed to be set off against unaccounted income of Rs. 1,90,000/- introduced in garb of guess deposits. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has upheld the addition of Rs. 75,916/-. Therefore, telescoping effect of this addition was allowed.
Over 200-representatives of trade industry representatives have opposed shifting from to negative list of the 2012 regime of the service tax which, if carried out, will only create hassles, paperwork and additional burden to the tax payers, revealed at the ASSOCHAM National Conference on Service Tax here today.
As rightly pointed out by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee, in the decision Radhe Developers’s case (supra), the Gujarat High Court considered the question on ownership as a condition for grant of deduction under Section 80IB(10) in depth and accepted the case of an assessee similarly placed.
The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Bill, 2011 was passed by the Lok Sabha on 27th December, 2011. The Bill was taken up for discussion and passing in the Rajya Sabha on 29.12.2011. Discussions remained inconclusive. Thereafter, the Rajya Sabha adopted a motion on 21.05.2012 to refer the Bill to a Select Committee of the Rajya Sabha for examination and report.
To CBDT on difficulties being faced by taxpayers with regard to requirement of audited balance sheet as on valuation date for the purposes of Section 56(2)(vii)/(viia) read with Rule 11UA(1) of Income tax Rules, 1962.
It is clear, Section 85 provides that any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed by an adjudicating authority can prefer an appeal within three months. Thereafter, if the Commissioner is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal, the Commissioner can allow the appeal to be preferred within further period of three months and not beyond that.
Since the assessee’s operations are efficient enough to obtain more profits and since the receipts are at arm’s length and there is no passing of excess profits by the parent company (AE) to the assessee, the Assessing Officer’s action in restricting the profits is not correct. Also there is no reason to restore it to the Assessing Officer since there is nothing else to examine. Accordingly, grounds of the assessee are allowed and the Assessing Officer is directed to treat the profits declared by the assessee as ordinary profits and allow deduction under section 10A, without any further adjustment.
Assessee eligible for S. 54EC benefit of Rs. 50 Lakh each made in two different financial years but within six months from transfer of capital asset. Only question that arises is whether proviso to Section 54EC(1) would limit the claim of exemption to Rs. 50 lakhs. Said proviso mentions that investment on which an assessee could claim exemption under Section 54EC(1) shall not exceed Rs. 50 lakhs during a financial year.
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Board of Excise and Customs hereby makes the following further amendment in the
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Board hereby makes the following amendments in the Notification of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance
