Challenging the order,dated 18/12/2015,of the CIT(A)-28 Mumbai the Assessing Officer (AO)has filed the present appeal.Assessee-firm,a builder and developer,filed its return of income on 25/09/2010,declaring total income of Rs.6.29 crores.The AO completed the assessment on 23/12/2011,determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.7.40 crores.
India Ratings and Research (Ind-Ra) believes that the launch of JioGigaFiber, a fibre-based broadband service for homes and businesses, by Reliance Industries Limited (‘IND AAA’/Stable) has the potential to disrupt the retail broadband segment and open up new digital avenues for the enterprise broadband segment.
otwithstanding the fact that the TPO determined nil ALP of royalty payment and franchisee fee, the amount paid as R&D Cess on these payments has to be allowed as deduction since it is a statutory payment to the Government.
If the registered person avails credit on accrual basis and does not pay the invoice value to his supplier of goods or services or both within 180 days from the date of issue of the invoice, he would be required add the ineligible credit so availed, as his output tax liability in Form GSTR-2 in the month immediately succeeding the six-month period along with the interest thereof.
Petitioners had ceased to be the Directors of the Company, as stated by them, on 8thApril, 2011 and that they could not have been penalized for the failure of the company to effect statutory compliances.
Since in the present case also the assessee had taken the loan from his wife for the purchase of house which is for the benefit of the whole family, therefore, following the decision cited [supra], we hold that penalty levied u/s 271D of the Act in the instant case is not justified.
The fact that the assessee has sold flats at an undervaluation does not mean that he has understated the consideration and earned undisclosed ‘on money’. The mere presumption that excess price could have been charged is not a ground for coming to the conclusion that the assessee did charge a higher price. The burden of proving such understatement or concealment is on the Revenue
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) – 2, Kolkata dated 30.01.2017 and the solitary issue involved therein relates to the disallowance of Rs. 3 6,92,842/- made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(a) on account of peripheral development expenses.
At the time of hearing before the Tribunal, the learned counsel for the assessee has not pressed ground no 1 raised in the appeal of the assessee. It is also noted that ground no 4 raised by the assessee in this appeal in general which does not call for specific adjudication.
Synopsis of Rules under the Companies Act, 2013: Amended; Notified In Year 2018 Please to share the article on the summary of updated/ amended Rules under the Companies Act, 2013, in year 2018 from the Month of January to July 2018 at glance with respective notification dates and effective dates Chapters Section Title Sections Applicable […]
