In the present case the retrospective amendment was introduced after the original assessment. The introduction of the amendment occasioned the re-assessment. The reassessment order gave effect to the amendment.
Subsection(1) of section 14A provides that for the purpose of computing total income under chapter IV of the Act, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act.
High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s Himachal Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. held that the excess provision for bad and doubtful debts written back by way of credit to Profit and Loss A/c is deductible while arriving at the book profits.
Allahabad HC ruling in ACIT (TDS) Vs. Lotus Valley Education Society clarifies TDS on School Bus Fees under Section 194C, not 194I. Full text available for download.
Section 14A of the Act provides that for the purposes of computing the total income under the Chapter, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act.
After hearing both the parties, it appears that the A.O. has passed the assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act, after examining the entire material. The issue relating to the cash credit was also examined by the Tribunal
a. The PMS Agreement in this case was a mere agreement of agency and cannot be used to infer any intention to make profit. b. The intention of an assessee must be inferred holistically, from the conduct of the assessee, the circumstances of the transactions, and not just from the seeming motive at the time of depositing the money
The tendency not to accept any adverse verdict on facts results in frivolous Appeals being filed in this Court. That causes huge loss to the public exchequer and results in wastage of precious judicial time of this Court.
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is legally justified in cancelling the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) inspite of the fact that the assessee did not furnish any explanation either before the Assessing officer
Bombay high court in scheme of amalgamation between Wadala Commodities Limited with Godrej Industries Limited has passed a judgment on postal ballot and e-voting. Court has observed that postal ballot and e-voting is an additional facility and cannot have the effect of dispensing the general meeting at all.
