Briefly stated relevant facts of the case are that the assessee-company is engaged in the business of investment in capital markets. Assessee filed the return of income for the A.Y. 2013-14 on 27.09.2013 declaring a loss of Rs. 5,35,493/-. During the assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer observed that there were unsecured loans to the extent of Rs. 19.25 Crs under ‘advances recoverable in cash or kind.
ACIT Vs Chaitanya Educational Trust (ITAT Hyderabad) Since the assessee has filed the certificates of the recipients with proof that the recipients have offered the income to tax in their hands, the assessee shall not be treated as an assessee in default u/s 201(1) of the Act. FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT All are […]
Since trade advances obtained by assessee from its sister concern were in the nature of commercial transactions, would not fall within the ambit of the word ‘advance’ in section 2(22)(e).
Quarterly meetings by PCCIT for better co-ordination with PCsIT and Standing Counsels especially in matters pertaining to removal of defects in appeals filed before High Courts and minimizing of delay in filing of SLPs
Subject to meeting other requirements, an individual is eligible to be a registered valuer under the Companies (Registered Valuers and Valuation) Rules, 2017 (Rules), if he: (i) is a fit and proper person,(ii) has the necessary qualification and experience, (iii) is a valuer member of a Registered Valuers Organisation (RVO),
When assessee utilised sale consideration of property in construction of another residential property within prescribed time period, then, merely on account of the fact that the assessee had neither declared the transaction of sale of property nor made any claim of deduction under section 54F in the return of income, deduction under section 54F could not be denied.
This group of writ petitions arise in similar background. We may record facts from Special Civil Application No. 12765 of 2017 and 12764 of 2017. Petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 12765 of 2017 is a partner of one M/s. Hitech Analytical Services and she would hereafter to be referred to as ‘a partner of the said firm.
The facts in brief qua the issue raised in the grounds are that assessee filed its return of income electronically for the AY. 2009-10 on 23-09-2009, declaring NIL income. This return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act and the total income was determined at Rs. 69,19,580/- u/s.
Explore Amit Parekh’s appeal against the denial of Section 54 exemption by ITAT Kolkata. Key details of the case and legal insights revealed.
The Petitioner seeks the quashing of a notice dated 20-3-2015 issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act (‘Act’) by the Assistant Commissioner (hereinafter assessing officer AO) and the order dated 1-2-2016 passed by the assessing officer disposing of the objections filed by the Petitioner to the said notice.
