The object of issuing notifications/circulars dated 27.03.2020 and 17.04.2020 was to provide financial relief in repayment due to COVID-19 to the parties who have availed the term loans and working capital facilities but this relief is not extended towards factoring facilities.
The issue under consideration is whether deduction under section 80IAB will be allowed against the income of lease/ rental income from development of SEZ irrespective of wrong classification of head of income.
As per Section 10(23AA), the exemption can be for the income received by any person on behalf of any regimental fund or non-public fund established by the armed forces of the Union for the welfare of the past and present members.
Harina Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) The issue under consideration is that whether the loan received from two directors can be considered as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act? In the given case, the assessee has received amount from two of its directors. The assessee could file only ledger account extract […]
In the given case, the writ petitioner has requested Income Tax Department for the adjournment of 3 weeks to respond to the show cause notice on account of the lockdown declared by the Government of India across India so as to effectively deal with the Covid-19 pandemic.
Lalit Kumar Gandhi Vs State of M.P. (Madhya Pradesh High Court) This is an application made by the applicant under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail during trial. The allegation against the applicant is that he had received a sum of about Rs.6,52,00,000/- from the applicant for supply of pesticides and insecticides and as […]
Interest income earned from investments with treasuries and banks is part of banking activity of the assessee, and therefore, the said interest income was eligible to be assessed as ‘income from business’ instead of ‘income from other sources’
In the present case there are allegations on the petitioner of having caused loss to State-Exchequer to the tune of Rs 20 crores appx. by evasion of payment of GST and he has applied for grant of interim bail, mainly on account of the prevalent conditions of spread of COVID-19 virus.
Pirna Urban Co-Oeprative Credit Society Ltd. Vs ITO (Bombay at Goa High Court) The issue under consideration is the notice issued by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) to the petitioner’s bank i.e. Ratnakar Bank Ltd., requiring the bank to remit an amount of 2,33,42,040/- as dues towards the payment of income tax by the petitioner. […]
Section 194 C of the IT Act deals with deduction of tax at source when it comes to payment to contractors. In the present case, since neither the Assessee nor M/s. Prabhu Construction can be styled as contractors, it is obvious that the provisions of Section 194C of the IT Act were not attracted. Hence Section 194C will not be invoked in this case and therefore consequently provision of sec 40(a)(ia) would also not applicable.
