In Shanders Properties Pvt. Ltd Vs. ITO, the ITAT Bangalore directed the AO to allow the expenditure incurred in relation to issuance of debentures as it constitute revenue expenditure under the provisions of the Income Tax Act.
AO was not justified in making addition in the hands of assessee, without allowing the assessee to cross-examine Mr. Mukesh Choksi, whose statement was relied upon for making the above additions.
Medical illness and that to be in the nature of the typhoid fever and UTI is definitely reasonable cause for non- appearing on the date and therefore, we are of the opinion that no penalty should be levied u/s 271(1)(b) in such circumstances as the same is covered under exception of ‘reasonable cause’ as enshrined in section 273B.
There is nothing brought on record to show that the activities of the assessee are driven by profit motive. In these circumstances we are of the view that the conditions for grant of registration u/s 12AA of the Act are duly satisfied as the activities of the assessee are genuine and its objects are also charitable.
No technical services were involved in payment of carriage charges made by the assessee for broadcasting of the programmes produced by the assessee. The assessee produced various types of programmes/ serials and news and these were telecasted/ broadcasted through Multi System Operators. Payments in this regard were made as carriage charges for which payment of tax was deductible under section 194C of the Income Tax Act.
In B.R Petrochem Pvt Ltd Vs. ITO, the division bench of the Madras High Court held that mere furnishing of identity of shareholders by the asseessee would not sufficient to discharge their onus under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. While confirming the addition made against the assessee, the bench ruled that the assessee must prove the genuineness and credit worthiness of the creditors in order to shift the burden to the department.
It is clear from the reading of Section 3(i) of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1997, that whenever complaints are received from a number of depositors against a Financial Establishment, which defaults or fails to return the deposits or fails to provide services for which the deposits have […]
Decision of the arbitral tribunal to pierce the corporate veil is fundamentally flawed. It falls foul of the fundamental policy of Indian law that recognises that a company is an independent juristic person.
Petitioners insist that they should get salary through the existing account with the SBI itself without insisting them to open accounts with the IDBI. Therefore, denial of salary to the petitioners on the ground that they did not open account with IDBI bank is illegal.
Section 50C is a measure provided to bridge the gap as it was found that the assessee were not correctly declaring the full value of consideration or in other words resorting to the practice of under valuation. Further, the decision of Special Bench in the case of ITO vs. United Marines Academy (supra) has made it clear that section 50C will be applicable on the sale value of depreciable asset.
