The present appeals raise two important questions which arise under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the Code). The first question is whether, in relation to an operational debt
M/s Vodafone Essar Digilink Ltd. Vs. CCE (CESTAT Chandigarh) The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the cenvat credit on towers, shelters & prefabricated building etc. of Rs. 5,88,13,400/- has been denied. Consequently, the duty was demanded along with interest and equivalent amount of penalty has been imposed. Aggrieved from the said […]
Emem Freight Forwarders Vs Dy. CIT (ITAT Mumbai) Section 210 of the Act requires the assessee to pay advance tax at his own or in pursuance of the order of the assessing officer on or before each of the due dates specified under section 211 of the Act. In the instant case, the assessment year […]
Booking of flat in an apartment under construction must also be viewed as a method of constructing residential tenements. Commencement of construction is not relevant for the purpose of sec. 54 and it is only the completion of construction.
Railway not require permission of Municipal Corporation for erecting Advertisement Hoarding on its land and Municipal Corporation not entitled to levy advertisement tax on the advertisements displayed on the hoardings erected on the land of the railways
Assessing Officer view in disallowing the depreciation which was claimed under Section 32 of the Act was that once the capital expenditure is treated as application of income for charitable purposes, the assessees had virtually enjoyed a 100 per cent write off of the cost of assets and, therefore, the grant of depreciation would amount to giving double benefit to the assessee.
Once plant commences operation and even if product is substantial and not marketable, the business can said to have been set up. Mere breakdown of machinery or technical snags that may have developed after the trial run which had interrupted the continuation of further production for a period of time cannot be held ground to deprive the assessee of the benefit of depreciation claimed.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. The challenge is to the judgement and order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune Bench A at Pune (for short Appellate Tribunal) on 30th April, 2014. The substantial questions of law which are placed into service are the questions which reads thus:
By this income tax appeal, the appellant assessee challenges the orders of the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner of Income Tax as also the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal holding that the assessee had traded in shares and the income was liable to be taxed as business income.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai bench, on Wednesday furnished an order which ensure that tax payers are not charged penalty for unspecified reasons.
