The amount paid for compounding an offence is inevitably a penalty in terms of section 483 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 itself and the mere fact that it has been described as compounding fee cannot, in any way, alter the character of the payment which payment, is in the nature of penalty.
The income from investment activity was offered as capital gains while the income from dealing activity was offered as business income. This position was accepted by the AO in the earlier years. In AY 2005-06, the AO took a different view and held that even the shares held on investment account had to be assessed as business income
The assessee is a State Govt. undertaking. Its appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that the approval of the Committee on Disputes (“COD”) had not been obtained. In a writ petition filed by the assessee, the Additional Solicitor General appearing for the revenue stated that it was not the contention of the revenue that COD approval
Taking a strict view of frivolous petitions that flood the courts, the Bombay high court in an unprecedented move has ordered a city-based organisation, the Bhrastachar Nirmoolan Sanghatana , to pay Rs 40 lakh as legal costs after dismissing its public interest litigations against a super-luxury tower on Peddar Road
In so far as the rents received from Samsung are concerned., the finding recorded by the Assessing Officer is that, the structure is constructed by the Company itself with its own funds and not that the super structure has been constructed by the shareholders on the land belonging to the Company or a case where the investments
In order to appreciate the controversy few facts may be noticed. The assessee-company is manufacturing colour picture tubes. In respect of the assessment year 2004-05 the assessee company incurred expenditure for the purpose of restructuring. The assessee-company had become a sick unit and in that regard a reference was made to BIFER for its rehabilitation
Assessees who fulfill all the conditions are entitled to registration cannot be faulted. The contention of the Revenue that the assessees are not registered as an institution and hence not entitled for registration is also without any merit, because, there is no requirement under the Act that an institution
After passing of order by Settlement Commission, no power vests in Assessing Authority or any other authority to issue notice in r/o period and income covered under order of Settlement Commission.
Unfortunately, for the appellant NBFCs. are not covered by Section 36(l)(viia) of the I.T Act and so much so, explanation to section 36(l)(vii) squarely applies or in other words, the appellant-N. B.F.Cs. are not entitled to deduction of any Provision created for bad and doubtful debts, no matter such provision
In Y. Venugopala Reddy Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and another, (2003) 263 ITR 30, the Karnataka High Court interpreted the words ‘notwithstanding’ used in Section 88 of KVSS and has held that a matter which has already been settled cannot be reopened under the scheme and the benefit under the scheme should not be extended to an assessee even with regard to the admitted income.
