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.
Section 2(88) defines “Sweat Equity Shares” so as to mean such equity shares as are issued by a company to its directors or employees at a discount or for consideration, other than cash, for providing their know-how or making available rights in the nature of intellectual property rights or value additions, by whatever name called
On facts, the Tribunal had clearly stated that the assessee had been in fact supplied the verbatim copy of the reasons, reproducing the same at paragraph 2 (page 2) of its order. The tribunal’s findings appear at paragraph 2.8 of the impugned order.
In the case of The Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. M/s. Super Spinning Mills Ltd., it was held that non-mentioning of Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 along with Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 would render the Show-Cause Notice outside the purview of Section 72.
It would be mandatory for sellers to provide the option to retail investors to place their bids at cut off price in addition to placing price bids.
Whether the transactions between the head office in India and branch office in Canada can be considered as international transactions? The assessee had entered into certain transaction with his branch office in Canada. The AO had taken these transactions also into sweep for the purposes of making the transfer pricing adjustment.
