In this case Shri B.D. Giri, ITP referred to section 288(2)(v) & (vi) of the IT Act and claimed that since he is retired departmental Officer, therefore, without any certificate of registration as ITP can appear before the Income-tax Authorities and the Tribunal.
The entire grievance revolves around the premium paid by the assessee to M/s. MMRDA Ltd. for the leasehold rights acquired by the assessee through the lease deed dt. 22nd November, 2004. It is the say of the Revenue that this lease premium was liable for deduction of tax at source failing
The important question that has got to be considered is from which date are the expenses of this business to be considered permissible deductions and for that purpose the section that we have got to look to is section 2(11) and that section defines the „previous year‟
The Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai, has convicted Shri. K.R Velu, then Deputy Commissioner Customs & Central Excise, Chennai in a disproportionate assets case and sentenced him to undergo two years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 25,000/-.
Board has received several representations regarding problems being faced in re-import of pets at airports. In this regard the undersigned is directed to inform that re-import of pets is not covered by Circular No. 15/2013 – Customs dated 08.04.2013. Therefore, it is clarified that re-import of pets as baggage is allowed subject to establishment of identity of pets by Customs authorities, production of the required health certificate from the country of export and examination of said pets by the concerned Quarantine Officer at this end.
The assessment in the instant case was re-opened on the ground that the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for AY 2006-07 had reversed the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the assessee’s case for AY 2005-06 whereby the Special Bench held that the commission of Rs.1 .20 crores to the three Directors was in lieu of dividend and the same was not allowable as deduction under Section 36(1)(ii).
Issue- Whether while computing the capital gain, exemption available under the head Capital Gain should be given effect and then only the provisions for set off and carry forward of losses should be applied under the Act?
The assessee’s contention is that the provision made towards the non performance guarantee is more in the nature of warranty. Thus, the company assured quality and performance and on any shortfall agreed for damages making provision based on the performance capacity
Did the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) fall into error in not holding that the loss of Rs. 4,92,71,000/- on account of derivative transaction was a speculative loss, and was entitled to the benefit of Section 73, in view of the Explanation to Section 73 of the Income Tax Act
The assessee has shown Long Term Capital gains during the year at Rs. 3888,313/- which has been accepted by the AO. If the AO was of the firm belief that the assessee is engaged in trading activities in the shares then it should not make any difference if the shares are held more than 12 months
