Disallowances u/s.14A could not exceed amount of exempt income, therefore, AO was directed to restrict disallowances u/s.14A to the extent of exempt income earned for the impugned assessment year.
Supertechforgings (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Amritsar) Conclusion: Additions made for alleged bogus purchase bills by AO was not justified as AO had not applied his mind to the information received from the Investigating Wing and he had not provided the opportunity to cross examine a person whose statement was recorded by the investigating […]
TDS on payment towards lease line charge was liable to deduct under section 194J as against under section 194I as lease line services were standard automatic services which were availed by any telecom service provider for the transmission of data and was not under any exclusive arrangement.
IL & FS Financial Services Limited Vs SEBI (Bombay High Court) Conclusion: Show-cause notice issued for imposition of penalty under section 15HB and 15A(b) of the SEBI Act for violating the provisions of LODR Regulations was according to section 15-I(3) with second proviso or not, that could be decided by the authority at the time […]
Shirmoni Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee Vs CIT (ITAT Amritsar) Conclusion: Donations made to the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, which controlled the functioning of most of the historical gurdwaras in Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh, would be eligible for tax exemption as assessee’s total expenditure incurred on the religious activities was less than 5% during these years […]
Anticipatory bail was denied to the sleeping Director who was accused in the National Rural Health Mission Scheme Scam as in socio-economic offences proceed of crimes were larger and further, offenders were economically sound, therefore, in releasing them on bail/anticipatory bail probability of abscondance not within country but beyond country was more probable.
Polytech Trade Foundation Vs Union of India (Delhi High Court) Conclusion: These are all issues involving disputed questions of fact, not amenable to adjudication under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is not open to the Court – just as it was not open to the executive authorities – to approach the matter solely […]
Since there was close association between the seller and the buyer and their ‘arranged’ pricing were adequately substantiated by TPO / AO / CIT(A), therefore, that part of the CIT(A)’s order was upheld which confirmed in toto AO ‘s order as regards the ALP and the resultant excess profit to be treated as deemed income under ‘other sources’.
Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was not applicable in respect of an agreement for sale which was void in nature. It was settled law that what could not be sold directly was not also be sold indirectly by way of contract for sale. It was within the realm of the competent authority to take appropriate action for restoration of the land assigned to the original assignee in accordance with law.
Any order of the subordinate authority which could have been considered as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue in allowing assessee’s claim of deduction under section 80IA, either due to lack of enquiry or otherwise, was the original assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C and not the re-assessment order. PCIT had proceeded to revise the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 to get over the hurdle of limitation which was impermissible.
