It cannot be a matter of an argument that the amount of sales by itself cannot represent the income of the assessee who has not disclosed the sales. The sales only represented the price received by the seller of the goods for the acquisition of which it has already incurred the cost. It is the realisation of excess over the cost incurred that only forms part of the profit
The case of the petitioner interalia was that there was a change in law as brought about by the decision of the Supreme Court. The Delhi High Court while holding that in considering a delay condonation application facts and circumstances of the each case are required to be considered, held that the facts of the case warranted condonation of delay of 25 days.
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of Section 23 of the Income-tax act, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that only the actual rental receipts should be treated as annual letting value though the municipal authorities have fixed the annual value at a higher figure than the actual rent ? and
The scheme of the IT Act, 1961, shows that the firm and its partners are treated as two separate legal entities so far as the provisions of tax law are concerned. While framing an order of assessment under the provisions of the IT Act, 1961, the firm and its partners are to be treated as two separate legal entities and payment of interest to a firm cannot be treated in the tax law as payment of interest to its partners.
The learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the amount collected as per the direction given in the Molasses Control (Amendment) Order, is also entitled to be deducted as revenue expenditure, while computing the total income of the assessee. In order to support this contention, the learned counsel appearing for the assessee
In this case the assessee was denied exemption on the investments made with Delhi Development Authority. However, relief was granted by the Hon’ble High Court. It was held that section 54 of the Act of 1961 only says that within two years, the assessee should have constructed the house
There is no mention of ‘fair market value’ in section 50(1); besides that the adjustments stated there are with reference to the written down value only which has nothing to do with the fair market value, and therefore, where the capital asset purchased by the assessee is a depreciable or non-depreciable asset, the assessee will have the option for substituting for its actual cost of acquisition its fair market value as on 1-1-1954 but where it is a depreciable asset and the assessee has enjoyed depreciable allowance, its cost of acquisition shall have to be determined as provided in section 50 – Commonwealth Trust Ltd. v. CIT
The issue under consideration is whether the employee joined as a trainee is eligible for gratuity as per Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972?
IT authorities are empowered to amend any order passed by them under the Act with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record. A mistake is an omission made not by design but by mischance. A mistake apparent is a mistake that is manifest. In other words, the mistake must be so plain or obvious that it could be realised without a debate or dissertation
Under the Ethyl Alcohol (Price Control) Amendment Order, 1971, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Chemicals and Mines and Metals, dated January 30, 1971, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 18G of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, the Central Government prescribed certain maximum ex-distillery prices of ethyl alcohol as set out therein.
