In the case of M/s. Majestic Exports vs. JCIT, ITAT Chennai held that the loss in the transactions of the forex derivatives contracts will be considered to be the business loss and the same can be set off against the business income.
It cannot be said that the land owned by the assessee was a vacant land. The character of the land has changed and it was no more plot of the land. Urban land, no doubt, is subject to the tax under the Wealth Tax Act, but, in our opinion, it will cover only the vacant land.
ITAT Chandigarh held in the case M/s Himlayan Expressway Limited vs. ITO that it is clear that the borrowed funds were not required by the assessee for business purposes. Therefore, the same funds were surplus funds in nature for that period which was utilized for making term deposits on which the assessee earned the interest.
In the present case HC held that standby maintenance charges are not technical services within the meaning of section 9(1)(vii). On the issue of Restoration Activities High court held that amount received from restoration activities cannot be termed as business income as the large portion of the cable Network was outside the Jurisdiction of Territorial waters of India.
In the present facts of the Case, the Hon’ble tribunal held that businessman is the best Judge to find out what is the best for his business and to whom he should employ as the Commercial Expediency is only known to him.
In the present case the Hon’ble Tribunal held that for invoking section 263 both the conditions that the order of AO is erroneous as well prejudicial to the interest of Revenue should be satisfied
Tribunal examined that whether addition can be made on account of net increase in the assessee’s capital during the year on account of write back as well as write off of some old credits and debits appearing in her accounts.
Sec. 80-IB(10) of the Act thus provides for deductions to an undertaking engaged in the business of developing and constructing housing projects under certain circumstances noted above. It does not provide that the land must be owned by the assessee seeking such deductions
AO made the disallowance by invoking the provisions of section 40A(2) of the Act, however nothing was brought on record on the basis of the comparative analysis to substantiate that the commission paid to the related parties was higher than the commission paid to unrelated parties.
The reopening has basically been done for two reasons – the first one being the alleged difference between Unsecured Loans from Directors in the Balance Sheet and Unsecured Loans from Directors in Audit Report under Form 3CD; and the second one
