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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
