In the present case, the Commissioner does not speak of absence of a written constitution. The appellant also asserts that the constitution of the Generalate regulates the Houses also, which come under the Generalate. The Tribunal also found that the appellant comes under the exclusive control of the Generalate through the hierarchies as disclosed from the constitution and there could be no separate registration granted to the Convent.
When a Company issues FCCB, it incurs a liability to pay a larger amount than what is borrowed and such higher amount payable by the Company will be for the purpose of its business in order to generate funds for its business activities. The amounts so obtained are used by the Company for the purposes of its business. Hence the liability to pay the additional amount would therefore be revenue expenditure.
HC held that Before parting, we have to note that we have come across series of orders passed by the same Assistant Commissioner wherein reassessment proceedings are initiated after the period of four years and the reasons supplied and the actions taken are not in consonance with the settled law. We request the learned Standing Counsel to supply compilation of the above referred judgments to the concerned Commissioner.
During an interaction of Director General of Foreign Trade with the major exporters of dual use SCOMET items on 30th May 2018, industry representatives requested that DGFT may consider the issue of SCOMET export authorisations from DGFT (Hqrs) itself to avoid delay in grant of export authorisations
Personal information like T.A. bill etc. cannot be directed to be given under the Right to Information Act, 2005 in view of Section 8(1)(j) of the said Act.
An Insolvency Professional Entity (IPE) is recognised in accordance with regulation 12 (1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Professionals) Regulations, 2016, only if its sole objective is to provide support services to the insolvency professionals, who are its partners or directors; as the case may be.
With regard to interest u/s 234C of the Act , it is levied for deferment of payment of advance tax for the period of 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011. In the instant case, since, the cash was seized after the expiry of the previous year i.e. after 31.03.2011, the assessee cannot claim non-chargeability of interest u/s 234C on that account. Hence, interest u/s 234C of the Act is leviable in this case.
Action of the assessee in adopting the bank rate prevailing in Australia is correct and the AO erred in adopting the Indian bank rate. The loan amount was given in Australian currency and as per the promissory note the AE has to return the amount in Australian Dollar. Therefore, applying the ratio laid by the Hon’ble High Courts discussed above, we hold that there was no necessity of any arm’s length adjustment in this case
ITAT held that non-compete fee paid is an intangible asset acquired by the assessee on which depreciation has to be allowed u/s. 32(1)(ii) of the act.
DCIT Vs M/s. Ambuthirtha Power P. Ltd. (ITAT Bangalore) The issue in Maxopp Investment Ltd’s. case (supra) was whether the expenditure (including interest on borrowed funds) in respect of investment in shares of operating companies for acquiring and retaining a controlling interest therein was disallowable under Section 14A of the Act. In the said case […]
