Assessee, an individual, had deposited cash in his bank account. During assessment, AO observed that assessee had entered into share transactions and earned income from commodities through Multi Commodity Exchange.
As a Quasi-Judicial authority, if assessee had fulfilled all the requirements that are provided under the relevant section 54 of the Act and the circular, that by itself was sufficient compliance before passing the order of refund of the tax.
Boroplus Antiseptic Cream was a ‘medicated ointmnet’ and was liable to be taxed at 5% under ‘drugs and medicines’ in Entry 41 Schedule II in absence of specific evidence including expert opinions, industry standards, etc. to justify the reclassification.
Appellate authority could not condone delay beyond four months under section 107 and this discretion conferred upon the appellate authority was restricted to condoning the delay only for a maximum period of one month.
AO was not justified in addition of interest expenses debited in the P&L account, a sum of Rs.2,12,94,836/- was capitalized towards CWIP under Section 36(1)(iii) of and added to the total income of the assessee.
Assessee was a non-profit organization registered under Section 25 and was approved U/s.10(23C)(iv). The main activity of the council was to promote exports of leather industries.
Delayed submission by one day of the Resolution Plan by the Applicant should be condoned as it had not caused any delayed or prejudice to the interests of any of the parties or has affected the timelines of CIRP.
Amount received as reimbursements for expenses related to software subscription services should not be taxed as technical services income under Article 12 of the of the India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ( DTAA ) or Section 9(1)(vii).
Assessee-partnership firm had filed its income tax return declaring income. The case was selected for limited scrutiny, focusing on the issues such as investment in immovable property and share capital/other capital.
Certain expenses related to cost of improvement of land put forward by assessee were disallowed noting lack of proper and sufficient evidence to support claims of cost incurred for improvement of property.
