Interest on delayed refund of amount would continue to be governed by the unamended provisions of section 35FF as the amended provisions of section 35F would not apply if stay applications and appeals were pending before the Tribunal prior to 06.08.2014.
PCIT Vs Khyati Realtors Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court) Conclusion: Assessee was not entitled to claim deduction of bad debt as the case did not satisfy the ingredients of both Section 36(1)(vii) and Section 36(2) and also advance written off was not allowable as business expenditure u/s 37(1). Held: Assessee carried on real estate development business, […]
In case of rendering of health care/medical services and not supply of goods, the value recovered by the hospitals towards the cost of medicines, implants, stents, lenses and various other charges towards room rent, supply of food could not be classifiable as sale or supply of goods but the transaction would be of service on account of Predominant Test/ Aspect Doctrine.
Since the job worker had carried out all the activities which, as per the department, amounted to manufacturing therefore, the job worker was alone to pay the excise duty.
Since the whole case of Revenue was based on the balance sheets of assessee who had declared all the transactions in their records and had even paid capital gains tax on the profit/compensation received, therefore, it could not be said that assessee had resorted to wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts or had contravened of any of the provisions of service tax law with intent to evade payment of service tax.
An order of winding-up which automatically came into force upon a default in compliance with the consent terms executed on behalf of the company, and its directors could not be placed on the same pedestal as an order passed on merits, especially in a case like the one at hand where it appeared to be in the nature of a device to obviate the liability at that moment. Therefore, the court dismissed the application for quashing of the complaints under section 138 read with 141 of the NI Act.
Assessee had given permissive possession and not legal possession, as contemplated within the meaning of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, the provisions of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, were not applicable to the impugned Joint Development Agreement and the conditions laid down in section 2(47)(v), could not be invoked, so as to bring the capital gains into tax in the assessment year 2012-2013.
Once it is established that there was nexus between the expenditure and purchase of the business (which need not necessarily be the business of the assessee itself) the Revenue could not justifiably claim to put itself in the arm-chair of the businessman or in the position of the board of directors and assume the role to decide how much was reasonable expenditure having regard to the circumstances of the case.
Addition of CSR expenses to book profit under section 115JB was not justified as AO or assessee, none could tinker with book profit disclosed in audited account and once the accounts had been prepared in accordance with standards in this regard, this tinkering by AO had no sanction of law.
Addition of bogus purchase by AO was not justified on borrowed satisfaction from the Value added tax (VAT) department without proper cross-verification.
