Revenue preferred an appeal against ITAT order which hold that open terrace area which can be accessed only through the private balcony of the individual purchaser should not be included while computing the built-up area for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s 80IB(10).
Since in the present case, the sanction was accorded by the ld. CIT in a purely mechanical manner without application of judicious mind, therefore, the sanction so accorded cannot be held to be a proper and valid sanction within the meaning of Section 151 of the Act
Vedanta Limited Vs DCIT (Madras High Court) Facts- M/s. Sterlite Industries (India) Limited has merged with M/s. Sesa Goa Limited with effect form 17.08.2013. Thereafter, the said company namely M/s. Sesa Goa Limited was amalgamated with M/s. Vedanta Limited, the present petitioner, with effect from 21.04.2015. Mainly it was alleged that notice issued under section […]
Pentamedia Graphics Limited Vs ACIT (Madras High Court) Facts- The order is challenged by the assessee on account of period of limitation under section 153(2) of the Income Tax Act. Assessee argued that the period of limitation, prescribed under Section 153 (2), to pass an order of re-assessment expired on 12.10.2014. However, the impugned order […]
An undisclosed foreign bank account per se can indeed be treated as an asset under section 2(11) of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income & Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act 2015.
So far as profit attribution of a DAPE is concerned, the legal position is that as long as an agent is paid an arm’s length remuneration for the services rendered, nothing survives for taxation in the hands of the dependent agency permanent establishment.
In our view no addition under section 68 of the Act on account of share capital could have been made only if addition under section 56 of the Act on share premium was also made. This is because Assessing Officer had no reasons to belief that income has escaped assessment under section 68 of the Act being cash credit on account of share premium or share application money or share capital as the case may be.
Ashimara Housing Private limited Vs Vibrus Homes Private Limited (NCLT Delhi) Facts- An amount of Rs. 32,43,000/- was paid as an advance to the Corporate Debtor by the Operational Creditor. This deposit is towards the advance licence fee. By filing this application, the Petitioner has claimed that since the amount was not refunded, therefore, there […]
Held that the refund towards the IGST paid in respect of the goods exported i.e. zero rated supplies, vide the shipping bills ought to have been completed as the two circumstances provided in sub clauses (a) & (b) of Clause (4) of Rule 96 of Rules, 2017 do not exist. The shipping bills, as per Rule 96, exporter once file are deemed to be an application for refund of Integrated tax paid on the exports of goods and withholding of the same is made permissible under Rule 96 (4) when read with Section 54 as specified in the decision of Amit Cotton Industries.
ACIT Vs PC Jewellers Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) Facts- AO disallowed the bank guarantee commission and credit card commission u/s 40(a)(ia) on the grounds that TDS is not deducted. AO rejected the diamond purchase from commission agent and added income @12.5% on the purchase alleging purchase as inflation of purchase price on purchases from accommodation entry […]
