Various courts have held that if assessee invests the amount in purchase / construction of building within the stipulated period and the construction is in progress, then the benefits of exemptions under section 54 / 54F, cannot be denied to the assessee.
As we are dealing with admissibility of expenditure u/s 37 and not u/s 36(i)(vii) according to which, there must be an expenditure at the first instance which has crystallized during the impugned AY as against deduction u/s 36(i)(vii) which is allowable to the assessee the moment bad debt is written off in the books of accounts, notwithstanding the fact that whether the same has actually become bad or not.
Learn about ITAT Pune’s decision on deduction under section 10B/10A in relation to TP adjustment by Approva Systems Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT.
The Writ Petitioner prays for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of Order-in-Original dated 21.04.2017 passed by the respondent and quashing of the same as arbitrary and illegal.
The challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated 21stDecember, 2016 passed by the Principal Commissioner of I ncome Tax (PCIT) rejecting the Petitioners application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) on the ground of limitation.
Shri Amod Shivlal Shah Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) Assessments ought not to be based merely on the confession obtained at the time of search and seizure and survey operations, but should be based on the evidences/material gathered during the course of search/survey operations or thereafter, while framing the relevant assessments.
JCB India Limited Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) Bombay High Court upheld the Constitutional validity of One Year Limitation for GST Transitional Credit under Section 140(3)(iv) of the CGST Act, 2017. FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT JUDGMENT / ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:- 1. All these petitions were heard together and are being disposed […]
Where assessee after, investing capital gain in purchase of new agricultural land within prescribed time, harbored a bona fide belief that there was not any tax liability of capital gain and substantiated his explanation with relevant evidence, imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was unjustified.
These are appeals filed by the assessee directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals)-13, Mumbai and order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-14, Mumbai dated 28-1-2016 for the assessment year 2006-07. Since facts are identical and issues are common, these appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common order, for the sake of convenience.
Fees collected by the police department is in the nature of fee prescribed for performing statutory function, which has been deposited into the Govt. treasury. In the light of the C.B.E. & C. ‘s circular also, there can be no levy of service tax on such activities carried out by the police department.
