Assessee was not entitled to claim redemption fine as business expenditure under Section 37 as the same was for the infraction of law committed by assessee.
Pr. CIT Vs M/s. Starflex Sealing India Pvt. Ltd. (Bombay High Court) Held- Court requested revenue that the State takes a consistent view and does not agitate matters on which the Court has already taken a view, without pointing out the earlier order of this Court to the subsequent Bench. Court’s endeavor is only to […]
Section 2(47)(v) – SC has held in Balbir case that transfer of any immovable property in part performance of a contract of the nature referred in section 53A of Transfer of Property Act will be completed only when the agreement is registered under Indian Registration Act.
Kalsha Builders Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT & Ors. (Bombay High Court) Subsequent Inquiry Based On Additional Material is Sustainable In Law And Requirement Of True And Full Disclosure Runs Through The Entire Assessment And Doesn’t End With Filing Of Return. FACTS – Assessee, a registered company, is engaged in the business of developing real estate. […]
Conclusion: Since assessee- AOP was a trust formed for the benefit of a sole beneficiary, therefore, applying individual tax rates to assessee-AOP was not a mistake apparent on the face of the record and therefore, it could not be rectified through Section 154.
The assessee should have been put to Notice and a reasonable opportunity should have been given for representing their case. While the same was not done, jumping straight way to coercive measures was certainly uncalled for. Therefore, Interest collected being without authority of Law needs to be refunded along with applicable interest.
Where assessee-director was able to establish the relation between expenditure incurred by credit card with the business of the company in which assessee was a director, the expenses incurred was allowable to that extent.
The relevant clauses of AS-7, applicable Guidance Notes, the fact that the accounts were duly audited and the disclosures made in the audit notes, the loss income as declared, small taxable income as assessed even after the additions were made and that the expenses as claimed were otherwise eligible and allowed in the next assessment year, we would accept that the assessee had shown that they had acted bona fidely. Thus, the assessee should not have been burdened with penalty for concealment of income under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
Process-cum-Product Development Centre Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Conclusion: Where assessee-society engaged only in imparting research based education/allowable skill training to students in manufacturing of sports goods and leisure equipments without any profit motive to enable them to get placement, it would cover within the definition of education u/s 2(15) and hence, entitled for exemption under […]
Deduction under section 80-IC was allowable to assessee @ 100% for a period of 5 years and for remaining 5 Assessment Years @ 25% (or 30% where the assessee is a company) as once assessee had started claiming deduction under Section 80-IC and the initial Assessment Year had commenced within the aforesaid period of 10 years, there could not be another initial Assessment Year thereby allowing 100% deduction for the next 5 years also.
