To categorize a particular amount as reimbursement, it is sine-qua-non that the expenditure should be incurred for and on behalf of the other. It envisages two cumulative conditions, viz., first that undiluted benefit flowing from the incurring of the expenditure is passed on, as such, to the other and the second, that the amount incurred is recovered as it is from the other without any plus or minus to that.
The workmen working in the Dewas factory of the appellant were transferred to Chopanki, District Alwar. Being aggrieved the workmen made a reference of the same to the Labour Court claiming that the employer has transferred them without any justifiable reason and such transfer amounts to illegal change under section 9A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.
ESPN Star Sports Mauritius Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Facts- The appellant is a partnership firm established under Mauritius Law. It is engaged in the business of selling advertisement time and programme sponsorship from Mauritius in connection with the programming via non-standard television on ESPN, Star Sports and Star Cricket programming services. During the year under […]
ACIT Vs Dong Woo Surface Tech India Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Chennai) Facts- The parent company M/s. Dongwoo HST Co. Ltd renders supervisory services to the assessee by dispatching expatriates to India for carrying out work for which the assessee company has agreed to pay supervisory and managerial fees vide agreement dated 25.12.2007. The scope of […]
Claim of depreciation on the home-theatre used for the business purpose is allowable in law – In absence of nexus between the borrowed funds and outstanding amount of the sister-concern, addition is not sustainable.
The only question that arises is whether for the purpose of recovery of sales tax dues under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act and Gujarat Sales Tax Act against the private limited company, the personal property belonging to the Managing Director of such company can be attached.
Held that search was carried out before the amendment, the addition ought to have been made in terms of the prevailing provision. Therefore, the addition made by the AO invoking Section 115BBE provision of which came into force only on 01.04.2017 is not sustainable.
Malook Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others (Supreme Court of India) Facts- The petitioner claimed the benefit of ad hoc service rendered by them towards their seniority as against regularly recruited clerks appointed after them. Conclusion-The decision in Direct Recruits stands for the principle that ad hoc service cannot be counted for […]
S. Karthik Vs N. Subhash Chand Jain (Supreme Court of India) Fact- The main issue involved in the present matter is that the auction sale of mortgaged property which was continuously blocked by the guarantors on some pretext or other. Ultimately Indian Overseas Bank disposed off the property via auction sale by way of a […]
The main issue taken up by the appellant is that the notice issued under section 153C by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT), Central Circle, Bengaluru are without jurisdiction and hence invalid thereby rendering all the subsequent proceedings void ab initio.
