A division bench of the Allahabad High Court, in CIT v. Jaya Prakash Industries Pvt Ltd, held that the difference on foreign currency translation which is notional debit/credit, did not represent any loss or income for the purpose of computing the taxable income under the Income- Tax Act.
When the assessee has been alleging that he was only extending facility to his client for delivery of lignite and coal, he has not acted as an agent between client and truck owners. Therefore, in our opinion, merely on assumption basis, the assessee should not be burdened with tax liability.
Interest earned from investments made in any bank, not being a co-operative society, is not deductible under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act
In a recent ruling, the division bench of the Bombay High Court, while allowing tax relief to Mr. Nusli Wadia, held that the sale of his life interest in the income from the Trust property would not attract Capital gains Tax if the previous transaction through which he got the title over the property was held as not a transfer or Gift under the Income Tax Act.
HC held that Tribunal – the higher appellate authority has neither considered and weighed, in entirety, the evidence relied by the lower appellate authority nor it has dealt with the reasoning and findings of the lower appellate authority while passing the order of reversal.
These two appeals are against impugned orders, both dated 01/07/2010, passed by Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi. The appellant is an institution created by an Act of Parliament – The Employee’s Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952 (EPMF & MP Act).
Issue of validity of reassessment proceedings is a jurisdictional issue. It goes to the root of the matter. The Tribunal ought to have examined the ground no.3 raised in the assessee’s appeal on its merit without being prejudiced by the facts that the reassessment order has been passed on the exparte basis in which the proceedings the assessee has not objected to the initiation of the reassessment.
Assessing Officer to compute the disallowance as per Rule 8D by taking into consideration only those shares, which have yielded dividend income in the year under consideration.
In this case SC held that After hearing learned counsel, it is not possible to comprehend the contents of the impugned order passed by the High Court. The order passed by the High Court is, therefore, set aside and the matter is remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits.
The division bench of the Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), in Lemes E. D’ Souza v. ITO, held that benefit of Investing in NHAI/ REC Bonds under section 54EC of the Income Tax cannot be denied to the assessee merely for the reason that the investment was made beyond 6 months from the date of transfer.
