In the instant case, it is the assessment of person allegedly searched, which is disputed before us, unlike the notice issued for the assessment of `other person’ before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Even otherwise, the issue of invalidity of the search warrant in that case was not raised at any point of time prior to […]
The ITAT Mumbai in Citicorp Investment Bank (Singapore) Ltd v. DCIT, held that the sale consideration received by a Singapore based Company on sale of debt instrument is not taxable as capital gain under the Income Tax Act in view of article 13(4) of the India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).
ACIT Vs Metallizing Equipment Co. (P) Ltd. (ITAT Jodhpur) In Hero Cycles Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT (1999) 63 TTJ (Chd) 665. Tribunal, Chandigarh, has held that the expenditure on telephone installed at the residences of directors is not covered by section 38(2) and expenses in case of a company cannot be for non-business purposes and the […]
Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs GKK Capital Markets (P)Ltd 392 ITR 196 (Calcutta) has taken a view that the shares held as stock in trade and the expenses in relation to shares so held cannot be disallowed u/s 14A of the Act. In view of the aforesaid decision and the decision of the ITAT in assessee’s own case, we are of the view that order of CIT(A) on this issue does not call for any interference.
This amount represents difference between the amount payable as shown in the books of account under the sales tax deferral scheme of Government of Maharashtra, availed by the company and that paid under the Pre- payment scheme on the basis of Net Present value of the amount due, as pe
In a significant ruling, the Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal recently held that if a cheque is encashed by the builder after the deadline for filing income-tax return, it will not debar the taxpayer from claiming I-T exemption under section 54 of the Income Tax Act, which is available on reinvestment of long term capital gains in residential property.
When the shares were found to be credited and debited in the DEMAT account and sale of shares were found to be genuine, then what is the basis to contend that purchases of the said shares were not made by the appellant.
As the assessee was not drawing any salary from POL then in our considered view the perquisites cannot be determined in terms of the provision of Sec. 17(2) r.w.r. 3 of the Rules.
In DCIT v. M/s. The Hooghly Mills Co.Ltd, the ITAT Kolkata held that shareholding by Subsidiary Company is irrelevant while considering ‘deemed dividend’ liability of Holding Company under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act.
When the Assessing Officer has not accepted the consent of the assessee in toto then the said consent cannot be applied as a Doctrine of estoppels against the assessee and the assessee has a legal right to challenge the assessment order before the appellate authority.
