Since the R&D facilities for which the assessee incurred costs outside India are neither of the assessee nor approved by the prescribed authority, there can be no question of granting any weighted deduction on the expenses incurred outside India.
Law is well settled that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an assessee is on him.
Merely because a person has not deducted tax at source from a remittance abroad, it cannot be inferred that the person making a remittance has committed a failure in discharging his tax withholding obligations because such obligations come into existence only when recipient has a tax liability in India.
It is well settled that any adjustments u/s 143(1) of Income Tax Act by way of intimation u/s 143(1) of Income Tax Act, on debatable and controversial issues, is beyond the scope of Section 143(1) of Income Tax Act.
HC held that mere association with a terrorist organisation as a member or otherwise will not be sufficient to attract the offence under Section 38 unless the association is with intention to further its activities.
It is held that assessee is entitled to additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) on power plant and the windmill installed during the year.
Anti-Dumping Appeal is allowed to the extent that the designated authority shall reexamine and give a fresh finding as to whether cessation of anti-dumping duty would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of injury so as to warrant imposition of anti-dumping duty for a further period of five years.
ITAT Chennai held in the case of Shanthilal D Jain Vs DCIT that Penalty under Section 271B for failure to get account audited not leviable when books of accounts are not maintained.
M. D. Infra Developers Vs DCIT (ITAT Surat) Facts- The assessee firm is in the real estate business. A search action under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was carried out on 17-07-2012 in the group cases of Dalia (Badshah) Babariya Group of Surat. The AO observed the modus operandi for purchase of said […]
he appellant no doubt has filed Bill of Entry in the present case. But the same has been filed on the basis of material given to him by his client. He has expressed his bonafide and denied in-correctness of those documents. Merely because there is evidence on record to falsify the said statement, Customs Broker cannot be held liable for the penal action.
