Where assessee had failed in establishing the creditworthiness of the donors, occasion for making the gifts and why the donors who were strangers and not men of means gifted such huge amounts to the assessee- HUF out of love and affection, therefore, addition made by AO was justified.
Pr. CIT Vs. National Informatics Center Services Inc. (Delhi High Court) Date of filing of the return of income is 25-09-2009. Therefore, the notice served on the taxpayer u/s 143(2) on 26-08-2011 is beyond the period of six months from the end of the financial year in which the return was furnished. Therefore, the notice […]
ITAT held that fantastic sale price was not at all possible as there was no economic or financial basis as to how a share worth Rs. 5 of a little known company would jump from Rs. 5 to Rs. 485. AO was justified in denying exemption under section 10(38) to assessee, being fantastic sale price was not at all possible in such a short time.
An undertaking like the assessee, which derives profits from the business of processing, preservation and packaging of fruits or vegetables would be entitled to deduction under section 80IB(11A) of the Act from the initial assessment year, viz. the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which it begins such business.
The Revenue entertained a view that the amount received by the appellant in the name of facilitation fee, is commission from various shops and emporia for providing services of promoting or marketing or selling of goods provided or belonging to the emporia/shops, is liable to Service Tax under the category of ‘Business Auxiliary Service’ in terms of clause 19(i) of Section 65 of Finance Act, 1994.
Revenue was not justified in issuing the impugned attachment notices under section 226(3), since they had already recovered more than 15 per cent of the disputed demand in view of the Office Memorandum issued by CBDT.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay in re-filing the present appeal is hereby condoned.
The Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi versus M/S. MGF India Ltd wherein dismissed the revenues appeal and held that lease equalization charges can be deducted while computing book profit.
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailing the notice dated 28.03.2017 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) and also the order dated 25.09.2017 whereby the objections preferred by the petitioner questioning the issuance of notice dated 28.03.2017 was rejected.
ribunal followed its decision in M/s. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. v/s. DCIT to held that an amount disallowed under Section 14A of the Act cannot be added to arrive at book profit for purposes of Section 115JB of the Act.
