Revenue is in appeal against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench dated 28th August 2017, raising the following question for our consideration
MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Revenue) Notification No. 57/2018 – Customs (N.T.) New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2018 G.S.R.582(E).— In exercise of the powers conferred by section 11 of the Customs Act,1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby makes the following […]
1 (i) These rules may be called the Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Amendment Rules, 2018. (ii) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.
Cromption Greaves Limited Vs. CIT (ITAT Mumbai) This M.A. has been filed by the assessee seeking recall of the order of the tribunal in ITA no. 1994/Mum/2013 dated 01-02-2016 . The learned counsel for the assessee pressed only one ground before the Bench that the tribunal order dated 01-02-2016 was passed beyond period of 90 […]
Sunil Agarwal Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) We find that there is no allegation in the reasons recorded that there is failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment u/s 147 of the Act, the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act after a period of […]
ACIT Vs M/s Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata) 1. Expenses on replantation without any expansion of plantation area or replantation in an abandoned area are not capital expenditure Capital expenditure involves an investment increasing the capital for higher profit. The expansion means extension of plantation to an additional area. An area already abandoned, […]
As per para 7, 8 and 9 of the Accounting Standard 26 (AS 26) issued by the ICAI, the definition of intangible asset and trade mark specifically includes brand names.It was held by the Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal that brand is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under Section 32 of the Act.
In the present case As assessee had established nexus of interest expenses with its main activity of financing and there was not a single amount of interest bearing borrowings which could be related with investment which yielded tax-free dividend income, no disallowance under rule 8D(2)(ii) was called for. AO was directed to compute disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii) at the rate of 0.5% of investments which actually have resulted in the exempt dividend income.
The Nainital Bank Ltd. Vs Asstt. (ITAT Delhi) When the assessee furnished all the facts and figures including the earning of the tax free income and the expenditure which was accepted by the learned AO, it is not open for the AO to say that the income escaped assessment because assessee did not reveal the […]
Pr. CIT (A) Vs M/s Bank Note Paper Mill (Karnataka High Court) HC expresses concern and anguish at the tendency of the Revenue Department to file unnecessary appeals u/s. 260-A of the Act even though the issues are ex facie covered by the decision of the jurisdictional High Courts or even the Hon’ble Supreme Court […]
