"30 October 2018" Archive

Gain on Sale of Mutual Fund is Capital Gain: ITAT Delhi

ACIT Vs Sunil Bakht (ITAT Delhi)

ACIT Vs Sunil Bakht (ITAT Delhi) The holding period of the assessee is minimum of 72 days and maximum of 186 days in the four schemes. The assessee contended before the ld CIT(A) that these are the only four transactions during the year. Magnitude of the investment coupled with the volume is also not much. […]...

Read More

TDS not deductible on payments of Roaming Charges

Ms Idea Cellular Ltd. Vs  ACIT (ITAT Delhi)

M/s Idea Cellular Ltd. Vs  ACIT (ITAT Delhi) In the absence of any human intervention during the actual roaming process, payment would not be fee for technical services and cannot be regarded as payments to Section 194J are applicable. FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT Challenging the order dated 18.3.2015 passed by the learned Commissione...

Read More

Remuneration paid to managing director in previous year cannot be a criterion for invoking provisions of section 40A(2)section 40A(2)

Benninger India Private Ltd Vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

Further, the remuneration paid to managing director in the previous year cannot be a criterion for invoking the provisions of section 40A(2) of the Act as the assessee’s turnover stood at ₹ 283 lakhs as compared to ₹ 99 lakhs in immediately previous year. This has resulted into rise of 185% in turnover. ...

Read More

Refund of Proprietary Concern can’t be adjusted towards Demand of Partnership concern

M/s Shri Mahavir Industries Vs CGST (CESTAT Delhi)

M/s Shri Mahavir Industries Vs CGST (CESTAT Delhi) A proprietary unit is an individual legal entity and any refunds due to the proprietary unit cannot be adjusted or appropriated towards the demand which may be pending recovery against an another independent legal entity, of which the proprietor of unit is a partner. It has to […]...

Read More

For Capital gain date of asset ‘held’ is to be considered and not the date of obtaining absolute legal ownership

Ramesh A. Radhakrishnan Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ITAT Mumbai)

Ramesh A. Radhakrishnan Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) We find that the expression used is ‘held’ as against ‘acquired’ or ‘purchased’ as used in other Sections like section 54 / 54F which shows that legislatures were conscious while making use of this expression. The expressions like ‘owned’ / ‘ac...

Read More

Block Assessment invalid if no Satisfaction recorded by AO of Searched Party

DCIT Vs. Salasar Dwellers Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)

DCIT Vs. Salasar Dwellers Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) Satisfaction in the case is not recorded by the AO of the searched party, which is a pre-condition for invoking jurisdiction u/s 153C of the Act and hence, the assessment framed u/s 153C read with Section u/s 143(3) of the Act is bad in law. FULL TEXT […]...

Read More

Customs Electronic sealing implementation extended to 01st January, 2019

Circular No. 41/2018-Customs 30/10/2018

CBIC has decided to extend the date of implementation of Electronic sealing for Deposit in and removal of goods from Customs bonded Warehouses to 01st January, 2019 in order to enable establishment of infrastructure and procurement of seals by warehouse owners....

Read More

PMS fee not allowable while computing capital gain on Sale of shares

Mateen Pyarali Dholkia Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

While computing capital gain on sale of shares kept under Portfolio Management Scheme (PMS), assessee could not claim deduction of PMS fee as the same neither fell under the category of transfer fee, nor under the category of cost of acquisition/improvement....

Read More

Sea Cargo Manifest and Transhipment (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2018

Notification No. 88/2018-Customs (N.T.) [G.S.R. 1076(E)] 30/10/2018

(1) These regulations may be called the Sea Cargo Manifest and Transhipment (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2018. (2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette....

Read More

Interest on enhanced compensation for compulsory acquisition of agricultural land eligible for exemption U/s. 10(37)

ITO Vs Shri Basavaraj M Kudarikannur (ITAT Bangalore)

ITO Vs Shri Basavaraj M Kudarikannur (ITAT Bangalore) We have considered the submissions of the ld. DR. It is not disputed by the AO that the land acquired was agricultural land and the conditions laid down u/s. 10(37)(i) to (iv) are applicable to the land which is in question which was compulsorily acquired. It is […]...

Read More

Search Posts by Date

September 2021
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930