Assessee had rightly claimed the deduction on account of improvement in the property being improvement in title of the property on being converted from leasehold Nazul land to freehold property as getting the property freehold will grant perfect ownership rights/title in favour of the existing lessee’s, who would then be in a position to transfer/sell the property.
Section 10A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) barred filing of applications for the commencement of the CIRP in respect of a corporate debtor for a default occurring on or after 25 March 2020, even if such application was filed before the date on which the amendment came into force i.e. 5 June 2020.
Adjustment of deficit of current year against income of subsequent year would amount to the application of income of the trust for charitable purposes in subsequent years within the meaning of section 11(1)(a).
Punishment of compulsory retirement imposed in the disciplinary proceedings on assessee was not disproportionate to the gravity of charges and therefore, no detailed reasons were required to be recorded in the order imposing punishment.
Where Input Tax Credit (ITC) had been wrongly availed exceeds Rs.5 crores it would amount to a cognizable and non-bailable offense and the offence was punishable with imprisonment for a term, which could extend to five years and with fine under section 132 (1) (i) of the CGST Act.
Power Company of Karnataka Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) Conclusion: Since there were internal financial arrangements made by assessee with ESCOMs to fund the expenditure, therefore, this could not disentitle assessee to claim expenditure in accordance with the Act and the income of assessee had to be computed under the provisions of the Act without […]
SC on finding that the Special Leave Petition had been filed with delay of 1288 days without any cogent or plausible ground; had imposed costs on the authorities for wastage of judicial time and adopting an approach that they could walk in to the Supreme Court as and when they please ignoring the period of limitation prescribed by the Statutes, as if the Limitation statute did not apply to them.
Since all the lender companies were regular income tax assessee’s & having PAN as well as their ROC details were brought to the notice of AO & their respective balance sheet showed that all of them had enough creditworthiness to lend the amounts in question to assessee and assessee had squared up the loan transaction with all these lenders (except 15 Lakhs) and all the payments/TDS were made & payments were made through banking channel, therefore, the addition made by AO was untenable.
Since section 44AD did not obligate assessee to maintain books, the provisions of section 68 could not be invoked where assessee had filed return of income under the provisions of section 44AD without maintaining books of account.
Reassessment by AO was justified as it could not be said that there was no material before AO to reopen the assessment and he proceeded mechanically based on the sole information received from the Investigation Wing and the impugned notice was without jurisdiction and contrary to Section 147.
