Director Of Income-Tax International Taxation Vs Intel Capital (Cayman) Corporation (Karnataka High Court) HC: Capital gain on conversion of FCCBs into shares would be determined by adopting conversion price prevailing at BSE or NSE on date of conversion Conclusion: AO was not justified in computing capital gains by adopting the cost of acquisition at Rs. 873.83 […]
Sun Dye Chem Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Madras High Court) A registered person who files a return under Section 39(1) involving intra-State outward supply is to indicate the collection of taxes customer-wise in monthly return in Form GSTR-1 and the details of tax payment therein are auto populated in Form GSTR -2-A of the buyers. […]
Alibaba Nabibasha Vs Small farmers agri-busines Consortium & ORS (Delhi High Court) The Petitioner ceased to be the director of the respondent No. 2 with effect from 27th October 2010. The resignation of the petitioner was also notified to MCA. The cheques, totaling to INR 45 Lakhs, were issued on 31st December 2018 by respondent […]
The issue under consideration is whether Compensation will be levied on to the builder as per RERA if there is a delay in handing over the possession to the purchaser?
State Bank of India Vs. Vineet Agrawal (Bombay High Court) we are of the considered opinion that no reasonable view can be taken that there was failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment for the assessment year 1990-91. If that be so then […]
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation Vs Sarang Yadwadkar and Ors. (Bombay High Court) 1. The situation in Maharashtra, because of the pandemic, continues to be grim. Normal functioning of the Courts is yet to be restored. The litigant public may not suffer for no fault on their part. In such view of the matter, we consider […]
Section 32(1) of the Act provides for depreciation in respect of trademarks owned wholly or partly by the assessee. In the instant case, the assessee succeeded to the business of the partnership firm, which had trademarks registered in its name. Therefore, the assessee under Section 32(1) of the Act was entitled for depreciation.
The issue under consideration is whether mere inadequacy of an enquiry or insufficiency of material on record can be a ground to invoke revisional powers u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
In the instant case, petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner’s revision of returns for the year 2017-18 as per the provisions of DVAT Act and Rules.
Continuum Wind Energe (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (Madras High Court) Conclusion: Amount paid towards the premium for hedging foreign exchange fluctuations was capital loss as exchange difference was required to be capitalized because liability had been incurred by assessee for the purpose of acquiring fixed asset namely plant and machinery. Held: Assessee had file […]
