Since there was no allegation by the departmental authorities that assessee had violated any of the conditions of the provisions of sections 11, 12 and 13, except, the allegation that assessee was a mutual concern and even applying the rule of consistency, assessee’s claim of exemption under section 11 had to be allowed.
AO had to confront assessee with the material collected behind the back of assessee, if he chosen to use the material against assessee and that he should provide assessee an opportunity of cross-examination. Not having done so made the evidence in question bad in law.
When deduction u/s 80IA(4) had been granted in first year of claim the same could not be denied in subsequent years, unless assessee had changed the original terms and conditions in the first year while fulfilling for the granting deduction in the first year of operation.
The dominant object of assessee’s investment in group concerns was to exercise business control by way of acquiring shareholding and not to earn the dividend. Assessee’s activity of holding such investment constituted business activity and therefore, the interest would be fully deductible u/s 36(1)(iii).
Airports Authority of India Vs ITO(TDS) (ITAT Delhi) Conclusion: TDS under section 195 was not applicable on payments made by company to the Federal Aviation Administration, USA (FAA), for providing technical assistance to AAI by way of providing its personnel and meeting on ATFM requirements and assisting AAI in connection with ATFM by development of […]
The provisions of the West Bengal (Regulation of Promotion of Construction and Transfer by Promoters) Act, 1993 (WB 1993) Act impliedly stood repealed upon the enactment of the RERA in 2016, in accordance with Sections 88 and 89 read with Article 254(1) of the Constitution. As a consequence of the declaration by this Court of the invalidity of the provisions of West Bengal Housing Industry Regulation Act, 2017 (WB-HIRA, 2017), there should be no revival of the provisions of the WB 1993 Act, since it would stand impliedly repealed upon the enactment of the RERA.
Merely because the some Directors did not appear in the case of assessee would not be a ground to have an adverse inference against the assessee, therefore, there was no justification to sustain the addition of Rs.45 lakhs under section 68 and addition of Rs.90,000/- under section 69C.
Gemological Institute of America Inc. Vs Add. CIT (ITAT Mumbai) Conclusion: In terms of the provisions of section 92CE, refund of taxes could be claimed or allowed on account of secondary adjustments- even if, such secondary adjustments end up reducing the income of the foreign AE assesses as a result of partial repatriation of income. […]
Submission of additional statement of facts providing further disclosure would invalidate the original application as assessee had not filed the application with true and full disclosure. There was reason to believe that assessee had not approached the Settlement Commission with clean hands and thus, Settlement Commission had committed an error apparent and allowed the application filed by assessee in violation of the provisions of the Income Tax Act.
In the absence of exhausting appellate remedies by assessee, the High Court was losing the benefit of deciding the classification of product “Herbal Sherbat Granules” on merits as High Court could not conduct a trial or examine the original records in the writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the Courts should not provide an unnecessary opportunity to assessee to escape from the liability merely on the ground on jurisdictional error, which was rectifiable.
