In this case the valuation was done based on the statement of assessee’s son who is no way connected with assessee’s business except his occasional visits. Therefore, the statement of Sh. Rajat Jain has no evidentiary value.
Government Corporation is like any other assessee before the tax authority and cannot be allowed to plead that on this count it be given a preferential treatment and be allowed to escape the responsibilities of representing their case before the other governmental authorities including the tax authorities.
We hold that since the receipt of interest is intrinsically linked to the primary activity of allotment of plots in the industrial park, it is hereby held that the interest is derived from the eligible business and thus, eligible for the purpose of direction u/s. 80 IA.
Based on the merits of the case on a beneficial note we are of the opinion that since the GPA holder namely Sri. Yarlagadda Ravi Chandra Prasad has disclosed the income from the sale of plots gifted by his sister in his return of income and discharged his liability of taxes on returned income, in his return of income, the same cannot be taxed once again in the hands of the assessee.
The narration of the professional fee bill by the payee is not at all material in rejecting the professional fee bill.
In the present case, section 35F of the Excise Act, as it stood prior to 06.08.2014, provides for payment of interest only if the pre-deposit amount is not refunded within a period three months from the date of communication of the order to adjudicating authority.
Held that if assessee is not eligible for credit in the year under consideration then credit for the same should be allowed in the year in which tax has been deducted by the deductor.
The interest amount has been actually paid by the assessee through Overdraft/Cash Credit account and, therefore, set aside the disallowance made under Section 43B of the Act.
Intelsat Corporation Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Ld. AO erred in not appreciating that appellant being a resident of USA is covered by the beneficial provisions of DTAA between India and USA and accordingly, could not be taxed under the provisions of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that, the issues involved in […]
Commissioner of CGST Vs Narbada Industries (Jammu & Kashmir High Court) That no refund can be ordered against a party, if that party has not been unjustly enriched or when it has acquired the benefit lawfully. Since the assessee have got the benefit of refund lawfully under the prevailing law, they cannot be directed to […]
