We have prefaced the discussion on provisos with the object of putting the real controversy in its true perspective. The orders passed by the Chief Commissioner are identical in all these cases and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties we are of the view that the following substantive questions of law would arise for determination of this Court:
S. 10(23C)(vi) provides that the income of any university or other educational institution existing solely for educational purposes and not for purposes of profit shall be exempt. The assessee was running a school solely for educational purposes and claimed exemption u/s 10 (23C) (vi).
Delhi High Court in the case of Messe Dusseldorf India Pvt. Ltd. (Taxpayer) [2010-TIOL- 74-HC-DEL-IT] dismissing a writ petition, held that in cases where a taxpayer has not been provided an opportunity of being heard by the Transfer Pricing Officer, the taxpayer is entitled to raise all objections and furnish necessary evidence to the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP)
In AY 2002-2003, the assessee claimed deduction u/s 80-IB (10) of Rs. 3.85 crs which was allowed by the AO vide s. 143 (3) order. The assessment was reopened u/s 147 after the expiry of four years from the end of the assessment year on the ground that the claim for deduction u/s 80IB (10) included ineligible items of other income such ’society deposit’,
it will be in the interest of justice to set aside the final order passed by the Settlement Commission and to remand the matter back to the Settlement Commission for hearing parties afresh and to pass orders as per law. Facts and circumstances noted in respect of writ petition no.2191 of 1999 are also relevant for the remaining writ petitions
Therefore, since the writ petitions are now dismissed and liberty has been granted to approach the Department, the petitioners granted four weeks time to approach the concerned authority under the provisions of the Act seeking for appropriate remedy. Till such time, the respondents shall not initiate
When an assessee purchases the spare parts for the existing machineries, same cannot be treated as capital expenditure and it has to be treated as revenue expenditure since these spare parts are purchased for the maintenance of the existing equipments.
The Delhi High Court (HC) [2010-TIOL42-HC-DEL-IT] in the case of CIT v. Industrial Finance Corporation of India (Taxpayer) which held that the difference between forward rate and exchange rate prevailing on the date of entering into forward contracts is fully allowable as deduction even if the
CIT v. Bhagwati Steels -(Punjab & Haryana HC) -In the instant case, it was held that the payment of freight charges by the assessee to the truck drivers was based on individual GRs which represented individual and separate contracts and there was no single contract for carriage or transportation of goods referred to between assessee and the impugned parties which would make the assessee liable for deduction of tax at source under section 194C of the Act.
Delhi High Court (HC) in the case of CIT v NIIT Ltd. (Taxpayer) [2009-TIOL-533-HC-DEL-IT], on the issue of whether the amount paid by the Taxpayer to the franchisees, pursuant to a franchises agreement (Agreement), can be considered in the nature of rent, for the purpose of tax deduction at source (TDS) under the Indian Tax Law (ITL).
