The AO further made a disallowance of a deduction of Rs.6,94,02,867/- u/s 40(a). The assessee claimed that certain disallowances were made for expenditure in the earlier years in the case of KEC Infrastructure Ltd. and as the payments of these disallowed expenditure were made during the year, the assessee claims that the same should be allowed in its han
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was erred in holding that while computing direct cost attributable to export the freight and insurance amounting to Rs.1,71,87,614/should be excluded for arriving at export profits while computing the deductions u/s. 80HHC.
A search was conducted on 18.01.2001 and it was said to have been completed in March 2001. The notice under Section 158BC of the said Act was served on the assessee on 03.12.2001 and the assessee filed the return on 31.12.2002. According to the learned counsel for the assessee / appellant, the notice under Section 143(2) of the said Act read with the provisions of Section 158BC(b) could have been issued by 31.12.2003, i.e., within the period of twelve months fro
The issues involved in this appeal are that ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions in respect of gifts claimed to have been received by the assessee for Rs. 1,00,000/- each from Smt. Sushilaben and Smt. Manjulaben. During the assessment year in question the assessee has shown to have received following gifts.
These appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment inasmuch as the question of law framed in both the appeals is identical and the circumstances are also virtually identical. The question of law that has been framed in these appeals is as under
The assessee is a member of Bombay Stock Exchange and it earns income mainly from share trading and brokerage. During the financial year 1999- 2000, relevant to the assessment year 2000-01, the Chola Freedom Technology Mutual Fund came out with an advertisement stating that tax free dividend income of 40% could be earned if investments
At the outset, it was submitted by the learned AR that the first common ground raised by the assessees in the present appeals relating to exemption u/s 10(10CC) is covered by the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of RBF Rig Corpn. LLC (RBFRC) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax – 109 ITD 141 wherein it was concluded that payment of taxes by the employer, on behalf of the employee, is a perquisite within the meaning of clause (2) of section 17 of the Income
Section 67 of the Finance Act, providing for levy of service tax on the gross amount charged by the service provider for the service provided plus/minus the inclusions/exclusions as mentioned in Explanation 1 to this section, satisfy the test for correctness of the measure prescribed by Supreme Court in the case of UOI v. Bombay Tyre International
The Petitioner seeks an order sanctioning a scheme of arrangement between itself and four transferor companies Cairn Energy India Pvt. Ltd. (CEIPL), Cairn Energy India West B.V., (CE India West), Cairn Energy Cambay B.V. (CE Cambay) and Cairn Energy Gujarat B.V. (CE Gujarat).
The petitioner filed his return of income for assessment years 1990-91 to 1993-94 together with audit reports under Section 44AB, on 19 November 1993, 23 July 1993 and 30 December 1993. The position as it emerges from the record of this proceeding is that the petitioner had obtained the tax audit reports under Section 44AB before the specified date.
