In section 54 was transfer of a long term capital asset’ being the residential house referred to a residential house which might comprise more than one building or buildings structure; but the same were used as a single residential house. Thus, even if more than one unit were adjacent to each other and were being used as a single residential house by assessee and his family members, the same would be considered as residential house u/s 54 and entitled to exemption.
Foreign exchange fluctuation gain/loss should be treated as operating profit/loss in nature while computing the profit margin of the assessee as well as of the comparable companies.
Stock exchange membership card was not an eligible asset u/s 32 and thus, addition made by AO on account of depreciation on the intangible asset being membership card of the stock exchange was to be deleted.
GST authorities are allowed to initiate inquiry proceedings under Section 70 of CGST Act, 2017 collaterally with the proceedings under section 6(2)(b) as prohibition of Section 6(2)(b) of the C.G.S.T. Act shall come into play only when any proceeding on the same subject-matter has already been initiated by a proper officer under the U.P.G.S.T. Act and therefore, proper officer under the U.P.G.S.T. Act or the C.G.S.T. Act may invoke power under Section 70 in any inquiry.
ACIT Vs Acer India Private Limited (ITAT Bangalore) Conclusion: No disallowance under section 40(a)(i) could be made as there could not be a retrospective obligation to deduct tax at source and therefore as on the date when assessee made payments to the non-resident for acquiring off-the-shelf software, could not be regarded as in the nature […]
Shrikant Mohta Vs Republic of India (Orissa High Court) Conclusion: There had been no substantial change in circumstances after rejection of the last bail application of assessee by the court in January this year and subsequent dismissal of his SLP by the Supreme Court in February. Further, huge number of documents had been seized and […]
Chennai Port trust was not eligible for exemption under Section 29(a) of the Urban Land Tax Act as it did not produce any evidence to prove that the Lands were owned by the Central Government and that the Madras Dock Labour Board was only the ostensible owner. Indeed, the evidence on record indicated that the Madras Dock Labour Board was both the ostensible and real owner and the Lands were assessed to urban land tax and that the Madras Dock Labour Board paid urban land tax as and when demanded. Moreover, the Board Circular dated 30.06.1976 expressly provided that lands owned by the Madras Port Trust would not be eligible for the exemption under Section 29(a).
AO was not justified in denying the benefit of exemption under section 11 as income on account of membership fees, subscription fees, grant in aid from Government of India, income from publications, exhibitions, award functions etc. were incidental to assessee’s main object to address national issues relating to real estate sector and better standard for its all member associations.
Gujarat Maritime Board was having a callous and indifferent attitude and not justified in denying interest on the refund of the deposit which was allowed to the Asiatic steel on account of delay in refund of the amount paid by it for securing contract for a piece of land for ship breaking activity. The Board’s action was entirely unacceptable.
Notification dated 24.03.2020 does not save the Applicant/ Corporate Debtor from the initiation of insolvency especially in cases where defaults towards creditors have taken place before the COVID pandemic and the resultant financial crisis. Such an interpretation would be contrary to the intention of the executive in exercise of its power of delegated legislation. If the intention was to provide for a blanket protection to Corporate Debtors from being dragged to the NCLT irrespective of when or what extent a default has taken place, it would necessarily require a legislative amendment, and that a mere issuance of the notification would not suffice.
