It is open to a company to buy back its own shares by following the procedure prescribed under section 77A/Section 68 or by following the procedure prescribed under section 391 read with Sections 100 to 104 of the 1956, Act.
The brokerage paid to the third party has nothing to do with the rental income paid by the tenant for enjoying the property to the owner therefore brokerage cannot be said to be a charge that has been created in the property for enjoying the rights and at best it is only an application of income received/receivable from rent
Ideal Appliances Co. Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Although Section 153A does not say that additions should be strictly made on the basis of evidence found in the course of the search, or other post-search material or information available with the AO which can be related to the evidence found
During the financial year 2001-02 the assessee had installed wind energy project at a cost of Rs.1189.87 lakhs. The assessee accordingly applied for the said capital subsidy which was granted to the assessee during the relevant financial year 2007-08 at Rs.20 lakhs.
If the installation project last for less than 183 day in a fiscal year by a Singapore Company having no Permanent Establishment in India, then business profits of Such Company earned In India from Such project are taxable only in Singapore under article 7(1) of DTAA and Not taxable in India.
Pr. CIT vs. M Tech India P. Ltd (Delhi High Court) Where the payments are made for purchase of software as a product, the consideration paid cannot be considered to be for use or the right to use the software.
Delhi High Court held in case of Yum Restaurants (India) Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO upheld the order of Delhi ITAT and held that under Section 79 of the Act the set off and carry forward of loss, which is otherwise available under the provisions of Chapter VI,
The notice is issued proposing to levy penalty under Section 271(1) (b) of the Act whereas the order is passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1) (c) of the Act which clearly indicates that there was no application of mind by the Assessing Officer while issuing the notice under Section 274 of the Act.
Even in case of substituted third proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Act which restricts the power of the ITAT to grant stay beyond 365 days “even if the delay in disposing of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee” has been struck down in Pepsi Foods 376 ITR 87 (Del) as being arbitrary
ITAT Mumbai held in the case of Hiralal Chunilal Jain vs. ITO that addition for alleged Bogus Purchase not sustainable as AO had made the addition solely on the basis of information received from the Sales tax department without making any independent inquiry or following the principles of natural justice before making the addition.
