Airport Retail P. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Conclusion: Payments towards bank charges for credit card payments were not liable for TDS under section 194H as the same was not a commission. Held: Assessee had made payments towards bank charges for credit card payments . AO made the additions as assessee made payment without deduction […]
Addition under section 68 on basis of information received from investigation wing as to assessee having received share application money from alleged entry operator was not justified as assessee had filed sufficient evidences and details to prove identity and creditworthiness of share application and genuineness of transaction of receipt of share application money
The Board’s Report is an important means of communication by the Board of Directors of a company with its stakeholders. The Board’s Report provides the stakeholders with both financial and non-financial information, including the performance and prospects of the company, relevant changes in the management and capital structure, recommendations as to the distribution of profits, […]
Since AO and wrongly took the date of deposit of self-assessment tax as date of filing of appeal whereas date of self-assessment tax payment had to be treated as the date of removal of defect in the appeal as originally filed, thus, once defect of remittance of self-assessment tax stood removed, CIT(A) was required to adjudicate the appeal on merits as the same was filed within prescribed period of 30 days from the receipt of order of AO.
Based on feedback received from stakeholders who were unable to file e-form ACTIVE as they had filed ADT-1 forms for appointment of auditors for the period from 2014-15 to 2018-19 as an attachment with GNL-2 e-form during the period from 01/04/2014 to 20/10/2014 (due to non-availability of e-form ADT-1 during that period), it has now […]
Delay of 253 days in filing appeal before CIT(A) due to extraordinary situation such as facing of marital dispute by his daughter, demise of the mother could not be considered when assessee was carrying on the commercial activities/business during the relevant period.
Amount advanced by Portescap to Videojet in which assessee was a common shareholder holding substantial shareholding could not be termed as loan falling within the purview of sec. 2(22)(e) as the same was shown in the balance-sheet of Portescap as well as Videojet as inter-corporate deposit (ICD).
India Today Online Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Conclusion: Addition of difference premium amount of Rs. 20/- per share in assessee-company on the ground that M company was a loss-making company was not justified as assessee had substantiated the shares issued at Rs. 30 per share was less than the FMV and the underlying […]
Exemption u/s 54F allowable despite start construction new house before sale date original asset
Postponement of Paper on 2nd June 2019 to 4th June 2019 was occasioned by the inability expressed by many exam centres to conduct the exam on that date owing to their holding UPSC exams on that day; Paper on 4th June was postponed to 13th June so that Group I of Final Exams is completed before commencing Group II papers.
