The facts leading to the controversy are the following. The respondent-assessee is a firm which was engaged in business with principal place of business at Kochi and a Branch at Mumbai. The assessee purchased a flat at a cost of Rs. 95,000/ in Mumbai for business purposes in the financial year ending on 31.31974.
The object of the transaction namely the loan transaction is towards the purchase of the capital asset as against the running of the regular business such a receipt would be a capital receipt. Therefore, by applying the said principle laid down by the Honourable Apex Court there is no doubt that the grant of loan being one for the purpose of purchase of capital asset which was also utilised for the same is only a capital receipt.
An unnecessary complication has been created by the interpretation made of section 40 (a) (i) of the Income Tax Act read with section 195 of the Act by both the appellant and the respondents. First of all, a proper meaning has to be ascribed to the expression “chargeable” under the provisions of this Act. Section 195(1) says that, if any interest is paid by a person to a foreign company, which interest is chargeable under the provisions of this Act tax should be deducted at source.
An Enforcement Directorate raid on a sister concern connected with the Commonwealth Games scam is not a ground to terminate a contract, a division bench of the Delhi high court has declared. The Apparel Export Promotion Council had invited tenders and offered the contract for the February 2011 textile fair to an events management company, Meroform (India) Ltd. Later there was a telecast in private channels that its sister company was raided in scam investigation. Citing this telecast, the council declined to give the contract to the events management company, though large amounts were spent by it. It moved the high court challenging the termination of the contract. The court stated that the council’s decision was illegal. However, it did not grant any monetary relief to the affected company and pointed out that the remedy lay in the civil court.
his appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 35G of the Cental Excise Act, 1944 (for short, the Act) against the order of the Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi dated 19.6.2009 (Annexure A-3) proposing to raise following substantial question of law
Income Tax – Section 158BD – Whether recording of satisfaction is mandatory before notice u/s 158BD is issued – Whether statement of one of searched parties can have the sactity of ‘books of accounts’. – Revenue’s appeals dismissed
Swatanter Kumar J.- Before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, the Income-tax Officer, Ward-II New Delhi, while preferring an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated December 1, 1999, relating to the assessing year 1996-97, raised the following issue
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the dividend received by the assessee on the shares held by him as stock-in-trade of his share business was earned income ?
This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act , 1994 against order dated 22.3.2010 passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi proposing following substantial question of law
In this tax appeal, Tribunal upholds Section 78 penalty, sets aside Section 76. Learn about the mutually exclusive nature and legal implications.
