Mr. Venkatesh Nayak Vs CPIO & DCIT (OSD) (Central Information Commission) When a Public Authority is largely funded by the Government and performs the duty of bringing back unaccounted money unlawfully kept in bank accounts abroad, it was essentially performing a Public Duty and thus every citizen has every right to know about certain information […]
Depreciation was allowable @10% on public highway road treating the same as building. It was held assessee was granted license for construction against which it had right to use and collect license fee to use of the land. It had right to restrict the people without non payment of toll tax. It was not only road, they had to construct toll booth and provide facilities for the staff for the purpose of their accommodation.
IBBI invites public comments on (i) Draft Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority for Insolvency Resolution Process for Individuals and Firms) Rules, 2017, and (ii) Draft Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Individuals and Firms) Regulations, 2017 by 31st October, 2017.
Non-contest in the proceedings under Section 73 cannot be used as a ground or reason to establish and show that requirements of Section 78 are satisfied. The Tribunal after appreciating different aspects, including conduct of the respondent-Corporation has held that penalty should not be levied. The finding is a finding of fact.
The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) has recently written a letter to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India seeking its intervention in designating Chartered Accountancy qualification as equivalent to Post-graduation and CA-Intermediate to be treated equivalent to Graduate degree in the University education system.
Deccan Paper Mills Co. Ltd. Vs CIT-IV (ITAT Pune) Now, coming to the aspect of book profits which was considered by the Commissioner and the order of the Assessing Officer was held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In this regard, it may be pointed out that the case of assessee […]
There is no contract in the eye of law in force under Section 53A after 2001 unless the said contract is registered. This being the case, and it being clear that the said JDA was never registered, since the JDA has no efficacy in the eye of law, obviously no transfer can be said to have taken place under the aforesaid document.
Mere allotment of PAN under section 139A of the Act would not make the allottee necessarily a separate entity for the purpose of assessment of tax. The statute recognizes certain eventualities where quite outside the requirement of payment of tax and for filing return of income, the Assessing Officer may allot a PAN to individual.
Section 54F does not cast any statutory obligation on the part of assessee to file his return of income within the stipulated time period contemplated u/s 139 or 148 of the ‘Act’, as a precondition for entitling him to claim exemption under the said statutory provision.
As purchase of inventory is continuation of same business activity, the, proviso to section 36(1)(iii)(d) did not get attracted in case assessee having borrowed funds to purchase inventory, therefore, assessee was duly entitled to claim deduction under section 36(1)(iii).
