In a recent ruling that will have a bearing on the buyback activities, the Bombay High Court held that the premium paid for buyback of shares shall be tax deductible as business expenditure. (CIT v. Chemosyn Ltd).
CIT vs. Hritnik Exports Pvt. Ltd (Delhi High Court) Sub-section (4) of section 10B stipulated that deduction under that section shall be computed by apportioning the profits of the business of the undertaking in the ratio of turnover to the total turnover.
Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT V/s M/S Krishna Capbox (P) Ltd in Income Tax Appeal No. 1 of 2015 has held that a mere non discussion or non mention in assessment order would not justify section 263 to be applied.
The question sought to be raised in this appeal relates to the deduction under section 80O of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act” for short). The Tribunal has considered this question taking into account the calculations made by the Assessing Officer
In this case Petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a writ of Declaration, declaring that Notification No.25/2012 dated 20.06.2012 (Entry 16) in so far as it provides for an exemption in respect of services provided by a performing artist in folk or classical art forms of music
Madhu Dadha Vs. ACIT (2009) 317 ITR 458 (Mad)- In the present case, the appeal has been filed after a delay of 558 days. From the contents of the affidavit and submissions of the learned counsel for the assessee, it is clear that the assessee has not explained the delay for such a long
The only issue before Hon’ble Court is that whether assessee can claim deduction on account to remuneration paid to partners when certified copy of instrument of change of partnership deed is not filed along with the return.
Issue – Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal in computing book profit under Section 115JB was justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 9,80,00,000/- transferred to the special reserve pursuant to the provisions of Section 45-IC of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 under Clause (b) of the Explanation to Section 115JB
The issue which falls for our consideration is whether the applicant has shown sufficient cause so as to become entitled for condonation of delay of five years in preferring the appeal against the order dated 31.10.2008 passed by the Tribunal.
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that no penalty is leviable under section 271D when there has been repeated violations of section 269SS on the ground that the creditors are genuine persons and there was no revenue loss to the Exchequer
