The CIT(A) remanded the matter and according to the remand report cash deposits were not explainable as there was cash in hand. Also, it was came to known that Assessee maintained one more account in Vijaya Bank which was not shown to the Department. Regarding the rental receipts it was observed by the AO
Revenue submitted that there was no change of opinion as contended by assessee and accepted by the Ld.CIT(A) as assessee has not furnished ‘Project Completion Certificate’ nor furnished the complete details of AOP as pointed out by the AO. It was the submission that the original project has started way back in 1996 and therefore
Impugned order has been passed by the Ld. CIT under section 263 without considering the explanation offered by the assessee and without applying his mind. The failure of the Ld. CIT, however, does not constitute any legal infirmity to make the order passed by him under section 263 invalid
The expression HUF must be construed in the sense in which it is understood under the Hindu law HUF constitutes all persons lineally descended from a common ancestor and includes their mothers, wives or widows and unmarried daughters.
Tribunal held that in order to impart justice to the employees/assesses the delay deserves to be condoned. Accordingly, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Regarding the issue of Section 10(10)(C), the Hon’ble Tribunal allowed the claim of the assessee holding that the authorities below were not justified in disallowing the amount of Rs.5 lacs
The Hon’ble Tribunal observed that the company has maintained and submitted separate set of accounts. There was a confusion between the total turnover of the business and total turnover of the undertaking. The Hon’ble Tribunal held that in the proviso to section 10B, there is reference to computation of total income of Undertaking.
CS S. Dhanapal Exemptions and Relaxations To Government Companies From Few Provisions of Companies Act, 2013 (To Be Notified In Official Gazette) Since the introduction of the Companies Act, 2013 in September 2013, certain class of companies like Private Companies, Government Companies etc. was feeling the pressure of the rigorous provisions of the Act and […]
Under the Companies Act, 1956, the Companies registered u/s the erstwhile Section 25 of the said Act (Section 8 under the Companies Act, 2013) enjoyed certain privileges by means of non applicability of certain specific provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. With the introduction of the Companies Act, 2013, these exemptions had stood withdrawn and these Companies were also being treated on par with any other Public or Private Company barring minimal reliefs which were granted in the Act itself, like relief in not affixing the word Private Limited or Public Limited in their name.
Lower authorities have overlooked the principle that the opening balance cannot be disturbed this year. The authorities can only reopen for the earlier year. In another case ACIT Vs. Smt. N. Sasikala (2005) 92 TTJ (Chennai) 119 it was held that If the Department doubted the availability of cash balance, it can go to the concerned assessment year 1990-91
In the present case the Hon’ble Tribunal held that assessee can’t be compared with other companies when they are totally different in functions. Also, the Intellectual property Rights, Brand Value have to be seen while making comparisons under Transfer Pricing.
