The High Court of New Delhi has held in case of CIT-1 Vs Ansal Landmark Township P Ltd that second proviso to sec 40(a)(ia) will have retrospective effect from 01-04-2005 which means that if the assessee had forgot to deduct the TDS on payment
In the case of Commissioner of Service Tax Vs. Vijay Television (P) Ltd., it was held by Madras High Court that the decision of the Tribunal is correct in setting aside the demand of service tax for the period beyond the normal period of limitation prescribed under Section 73 of the Finance Act
The assessee company was incorporated on 31.05.2005 pursuant to the reorganization of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board.During the course of survey conducted on 18.12.2008, it was noticed that the assessee had made payment to MSETCL and PGCIL under the BPTAs without deducting tax at source.
The matter involves three assessment years, namely,2010-11,2011-12and 2012-13.The Assessee firm was engaged in the business of trading in ferrous and nonferrous metals. During a scrutiny assessment related to A.Y. 2010-11
The assessee company was engaged in the making of High Pressure Gas Cylinder and compressed natural gas cylinders. The assessee has subsidiary company at Dubai.The A.O. disallowed interest as per ruled 8D read with section 14A of the Act w.r.t to dividend income of Rs.3191330/-
The assessee filed its return of income on 02.12.2013, which was processed u/s 143(1) at the returned income and accordingly refund order of Rs.20,16,957/- was issued. Subsequently A.O. based on reporting made by statutory auditor in the audit report in the form of 3CD u/s 44AB
CIT vs Noida Medicare Centre Ltd (Delhi High Court) Even though the sales tax was paid in a subsequent year, the liability to pay sales tax arose in the accounting period relevant to the assessment year in which the machinery was purchased.
CIT vs. Vaish Associates (Delhi High Court) A plain reading of Clause 6(a) leads to a conclusion that the term’ allocable profits’ was used to mean ‘book profits’ as used in Section 40(b)(v)of the Act or otherwise the reference to the section in the Clause has no meaning.
Bombay High court held In the case of M/s Vijay Udhyog vs. CIT that where two opinion or views are available and one of the view is taken by the AO, cannot be a basis for revision of order u/s 263. Also none of the clauses of section 80I(2)(i) to (iv) prohibit the assessee from taking other industrial undertakings on hire and use it for the purpose of manufacturing activity.
In the case of ACIT Vs Shri Kamlakar Moghe it was held by Nagpur Bench of Bombay HC that deduction u/s 54EC can be claimed by the assessee despite making the investment in REC bonds beyond six months if the delay was due to non-availability of the REC Bonds.
