Relinquishment deed was made in financial year 2008-09. Thus, if any tax was required to be levied, then the same was to be levied in assessment year 2009-10, i.e., next year. Hence, assessee was entitled to benefit under section 54.
CIT Vs. M/s Gujarat Cypromet Ltd. (Supreme Court of India) The conversion of outstanding interest into loan does not amount to actual payment of the interest in order to qualify for deduction in view of the retrospective insertion of Explanation 3C to Section 43B of Income Tax Act, 1961. FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT […]
In re McNally Bharat Engineering Company Limited (GST AAR Andhra Pradesh) Whether the activities carried out by the applicant under all 3 contracts entered for establishment of Solar PV Power Project can be treated as Composite Supply? If yes, whether the said supply can be classified under SI. No.234 of Schedule I of the Notification […]
ITO Vs M/s Smart Sensors & Transducers Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) As regards to set off of business loss against gain on sale of depreciable asset of factory building by the assessee, we find that the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Raj Shree Roadlines vs ITO (ITA No.1627/Mum/2012) for A.Y . […]
Expenditure on account of AMC for repairs and maintenance of computers installed at assessee’s office premises were payments of contractual nature without involving any technical or professional skill or knowledge. Therefore, TDS was rightly deducted by assessee under section 194C, instead of 194J.
South Yarra Holdings Vs ITO (Bombay High Court) It is a settled position in law that re-opening of an assessment has to be done by an Assessing Officer on his own satisfaction. It is not open to an Assessing Officer issue a reopening notice at the dictate and/or satisfaction of some other authority. Therefore, on […]
Pr. CIT Vs M/s Yes Bank Ltd. (Supreme Court of India) The main issue involved in this appeal, as rightly taken note of by the High Court in para 6, was with regard to the applicability of Section 35-D of the Act to the respondent assessee(Bank). It was, however, not decided. In our view, the […]
Kaushik D. Mistry Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) So far as the question of deduction u/s 54 is concerned, we find that the assessee has not acquired the ownership rights in the new property but merely acquired tenancy right which could not be equated with ownership rights. The conditions of Section 54 as well as Section […]
In case, it is not possible to re-credit the amount to the Electronic Credit Ledger by the respondent revenue due to non-availability of mechanism at GSTN portal, the petitioner shall be permitted to manually take input tax credit of the amount of the refund rejected in Form GSTR-3B.
Pr. CIT Vs M/s. Yes Bank Ltd. (Bombay High Court) Assessing Officer sought clarification from the assessee about the correctness of the amount of onefifth of the total expenses incurred under Section 35D of the Act. The assessee under letter dated 26.10.2004 gave specific explanation on the issue raised by the Assessing Officer and thereafter, […]
