Medravathi Agro Farms Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Hyderabad) It is observed that the assessee company as well as other thirteen land owning companies were incorporated with their main object to carry on the agricultural activities and there is no dispute about the same. In order to pursue this main objects, these companies purchased agricultural […]
ITAT Delhi ruling in Divya Devi vs. ACIT: Jewellery rebate as per CBDT’s Instruction No. 1916. Download full text of the order. Date: 16-05-2014.
Rajasthan High Court held that the CBDT had clearly provided that prescribed limit of jewellery will not be seized, it would mean that taxpayer, found with possession of such jewellery, will also not be questioned about its source and acquisition.
Assessing the legitimacy of Rs. 10 lakh written off by Zebina Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. Explore ITAT Delhi’s decision favoring the business expenditure claim.
Assessing interest expenses disallowance. Own funds cover interest-free advances. Proportionate disallowance if own funds insufficient. Judicial discipline emphasized.
Explore the Supreme Court judgment on Corporation Bank vs. Saraswati Abharansala regarding excess Sales Tax collection. Learn how the retrospective effect of a notification led to a rate reduction, compelling the state to refund the excess amount. Discover the legal implications, the court’s interpretation, and the directive for the state to refund the tax with interest. Stay informed about key legal precedents and the principles of statutory construction.
As per the CBDT Circular discussed in the case of Smt. Pati Devi vs. ITO; 240 ITR 727 Karnatka 500gm, jewellery is expected in the possession of a married lady and that much of ornaments cannot be seized. If we go with the CBDT Circular dated 11.05.1994 and the ratio laid down in the case of Smt. Pati Devi (supra), then each lady is expected to own 500gm. ornaments.
