It is not for the TPO to decide the best business strategy for the assessee. The Hon’ble High Court also held that This whimsical fixation by the TPO amounts to an arbitrary and unbridled exercise of power.
Mr. Tushar Kothari Vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) The intention behind enacting provisions of Section 2(22)(e) is that closely held companies (i.e. companies in which public are not substantially interested), which are controlled by a group of members, even though the company has accumulated profits would not distribute such profit as dividend because if so distributed […]
RBI had earlier constituted a Working Group to review the guidelines for Hedging of Commodity Price Risk by Residents in overseas markets (Chairman: Shri Chandan Sinha). Based on the report of the working group and comments received on the report, draft directions for hedging of commodity price risk and freight risk were released for comments on Jan 12, 2018.
This is in reference to the subject mentioned above. Phase 4 of the Investigation Module has been rolled out on 12.03.2018.
ACIT Vs. Sh. Vineet Kumar Kapila (ITAT Delhi) ITAT held that booking of flat with the builder has to be treated as construction of flat by the assessee and hence period of three years would apply for construction of new house from the date of transfer of long term capital asset. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has […]
Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. Vs. CIT (Bombay High Court) While mere making of provision for bad debts will not by itself (on application of amended law) entitle the party to deduction, yet it would be a matter where the assessee should be given an opportunity to establish its claim. This by producing its evidence of […]
Once assessee had invested sale proceeds of existing asset for the purpose of construction of new house within the time period specified under section 54F he could not be denied the benefit under the section, even if the assessee finally could not construct the new house within the specified period of three years.
Refund under section 244A(1)(b) of the Act on self assessment tax is to be paid from the date of payment of self assessment tax till the date of grant of refund.
Dis allowance under section 40(a)(ia) on the ground that the assessee had failed to deduct the tax at source on payment made was not justified as the recipient had already paid the taxes on the sources of income and due certificate was also furnished by the assessee.
The Mumbai bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has ruled that date of possession is not material fact for deciding the period of holding to Compute Short Term or Long Term Capital Gain.
