The petitioner, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, seeks a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside a Transfer Pricing Order dated 31 st October, 2011, passed by respondent No.2 – Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Transfer Pricing
To attract Section 45(4) there should be a transfer of a capital asset from the firm to the retiring partners, by which the firms ceases to have any right in the property which is so transferred. In other words, its right to the property should stand extinguished and the retiring partners acquires absolute title to the property.
The Sales Tax Tribunal Bar Association in the State of Maharashtra has filed this Writ Petition seeking certain directions relating to appointment of members of the Sales Tax Tribunal under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002.
Exemption u/s. 54F has been granted to the assessee with a view to encourage construction of one residential house. The construction/purchase of a house other than one residential house is not covered by section 54F of the Act.
Rs.11,19,765/- claimed Ly the appellant as commodities income is not relatable to the business of the appellant and as held by the Assessing Officer, duly affirmed by the Income TAX Appellate Tribunal and is a sham transaction, recorded with the sole object of evading tax by claiming this amount as income from other sources.
It would be for the respondent to establish during the trial that her failure to file her return was not wilful. The Courts below went wrong in going into the question as to whether the explanation offered by the respondent in response to the show cause notice given to her before the filing
The Hon’ble High Court placed reliance on the decision pronounced in the case of CIT vs. Goyal MG Gases Ltd., (2008) 296 ITR 72 (Delhi) wherein it was held that a tanker or a gas cylinder attached to the body of a truck continues to be a gas cylinder
The difference between the ‘short-term capital’ asset and ‘long-term capital asset’ is the period over which the property has been held by the assessee and not the nature of tittle over the property. The lessee of the property has rights as owner of the property subject to covenants of the lease
The CIT (A) considered the question of addition of Rs.41,08,724/- by AO under Section 68 of the Act and have recorded findings that if in the previous years the agricultural income from the same land on which agricultural crops were produced by the appellant was accepted
The assessee filed a return cf income claiming deductions under section 18(1)(b) of the Act. The deductions were disallowed. The Assessing officer, also directed initiation cf penalty proceedings, under Sections 271(1)(c) cf the Act.
