Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Archive: 26 June 2015

Posts in 26 June 2015

Postmortem of Union Budget 2024: A Comprehensive Webinar

July 18, 2024 5376 Views 3 comments Print

Join our webinar on July 24-25 for an in-depth analysis of Union Budget 2024. Learn about tax proposals, sector impacts, and investment insights. Register now!

Live Course on 360 degree Analysis of Input Tax Credit from a Litigation Perspective

July 18, 2024 4584 Views 0 comment Print

Join CA Sachin Jain for a live course on Input Tax Credit from a litigation perspective. Gain practical insights and master ITC complexities. Register now!

Notification No. 54/2015-Income tax, Dated: 26.06.2015

June 26, 2015 400 Views 0 comment Print

Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board of Direct Taxes Notification FORM NO. 3CP (F.No. 203/23/2015-ITA.II) Notification No. 54 /2015 Place: New-Delhi Dated: 26/06/2015 Download Full Text of The Notification Read Full Notification Below

Notification No. 53/2015-Income Tax, Dated: 30.06.2015

June 26, 2015 466 Views 0 comment Print

The approved entity shall not accept any amount from the beneficiaries under the eligible agricultural extension project for training, education, guidance or for any material so distributed for the said purposes.

Notification No. 52/2015-Income Tax, Dated: 26.06.2015

June 26, 2015 589 Views 0 comment Print

Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board of Direct Taxes Notification FORM NO. 3CP Notification No. 52/2015 Dated: 26/06/2015 Download The Full Text of Notification Read Full Notification Below

Loans advanced by partner to firm does not fall in the purview of Sec 269SS

June 26, 2015 3515 Views 0 comment Print

The respondent assessee in all these appeals are partnership firms engaged in the business of banking and registered under the Kerala Money Lending Act. The assessees had filed return of income and the same was accepted in due course.

Sec 40A(3) disallowance not attracted for payment made as advance for purchasing assets capitalized in books

June 26, 2015 6332 Views 0 comment Print

To make any disallowance under section 40A(3), it is a precondition that the assessee must have claimed deduction, directly or indirectly, for which payment is made in cash exceeding the specified limit.

Depreciation not allowed on share issue expenses capitalized to the cost of assets

June 26, 2015 2750 Views 0 comment Print

The learned counsel for assessee justified the claim for depreciation on the ground that these amounts which were capitalized, represented expenditure incurred in raising finance for the acquisition of and/or for brining into existence capital assets and thus formed part of the cost of fixed assets.

C4 Raffinate eligible for partial Excise exemption under Notification No. 6/2000 dated 01.03.2000- SC

June 26, 2015 853 Views 0 comment Print

Even if C-4 Raffinate is treated as Butylene exemption under S. No. 24 of Notification No. 6/2000-C.E., would be available because specification of butylene in the said Sl. No. 24 is not for the purpose of its exclusion, but for the purpose of its specific enumeration and inclusion

Genuine expenditure paid in cash cannot be disallowed u/s 40A(3)

June 26, 2015 5508 Views 0 comment Print

Whether expenditure paid in cash, which is not disallowed u/s 37 (1), can be disallowed under section 40A(3). Whether provision of section 54F are applicable where nature of property turned into commercial purpose.

Profits may be recognized on sale even if Assessee follows project completion method if all risk and reward been passed on

June 26, 2015 685 Views 0 comment Print

The assessee firm is a builder and developer and is assessed in the status of AOP. During the year under consideration, the assessee was developing a residential project which involved construction of 182 flats. The assessee did not disclose any income out of these projects on the plea that it was following ‘project completion method’ and offered income on these in AY 2010-11

A controlled transaction cannot be benchmarked against another controlled transaction (TP)

June 26, 2015 522 Views 0 comment Print

ITAT had given a finding that the services provided to AE, Singapore cannot be equated with the kind of services provided to AE, Germany. Thus by following the order passed by the Tribunal in the hands of the assessee for AY 2006-07, we uphold the order of ld. DRP on this issue. Accordingly, the appeal filed by department is dismissed.

Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031