With regard to interest u/s 234C of the Act , it is levied for deferment of payment of advance tax for the period of 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011. In the instant case, since, the cash was seized after the expiry of the previous year i.e. after 31.03.2011, the assessee cannot claim non-chargeability of interest u/s 234C on that account. Hence, interest u/s 234C of the Act is leviable in this case.
Action of the assessee in adopting the bank rate prevailing in Australia is correct and the AO erred in adopting the Indian bank rate. The loan amount was given in Australian currency and as per the promissory note the AE has to return the amount in Australian Dollar. Therefore, applying the ratio laid by the Hon’ble High Courts discussed above, we hold that there was no necessity of any arm’s length adjustment in this case
ITAT held that non-compete fee paid is an intangible asset acquired by the assessee on which depreciation has to be allowed u/s. 32(1)(ii) of the act.
DCIT Vs M/s. Ambuthirtha Power P. Ltd. (ITAT Bangalore) The issue in Maxopp Investment Ltd’s. case (supra) was whether the expenditure (including interest on borrowed funds) in respect of investment in shares of operating companies for acquiring and retaining a controlling interest therein was disallowable under Section 14A of the Act. In the said case […]
Notification No. 7/26/2018-DGAD. Initiation of 2nd Sunset Review petition for extension of Anti-dumping duty against imports of Acetone originating in or exported from European Union, Singapore, South Africa and United States of America.
Composite Supply of Works Contract Service by the EPC contractors to OPTCL will be taxable @ 12% if it falls under Serial No. 3(vi) of the updated version of the Notification dated 28.06.2017. But if it does not fall under Serial No. 3(vi), it will fall under the residual entry at Serial No. 3(xii) and will be taxable @ 18%.
on’ble High Court further directed that the appellants while preferring second appeal before the Tribunal are required to deposit 10% of the amount of duty/penalty as confirmed by the Appellate Authority inclusive of 7.5% pre-deposit made for the first appeal and that 10% would not be in addition to and over and above 7.5% of pre-deposit made for the first appeal.
Treating the receipt of huge share application money by an investor-company as unexplained investment, merely due to the reason that low income was declared by such investor in its income-tax return, was not justified, since balance sheet of the investor produced by assessee had proved creditworthiness, genuineness and identity of the investor.
This appeal by the Revenue arises out of the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-Durgapur [in short the ld CIT(A)] in Appeal No. 08/CIT(A)/DGP/2015-16 dated 31.08.2016 against the order passed by the DCIT, Circle-1, Dgp [ in short the ld AO] under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act
CIT Vs M/s Sudev industries limited (Delhi High Court) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in holding that service of notice at the factory premises of the Assessee on the security guard was not proper service under the provisions of Section 282(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Section 282 of […]
