M/s. Indus Best Hospitality & Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs PR. CIT (ITAT Mumbai) We have considered rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below and found from record that CIT has invoked his power u/s.263 to examine the land development charges paid by the assessee to Smt. Sumitraben Chauhan. From the […]
When a Company issues FCCB, it incurs a liability to pay a larger amount than what is borrowed and such higher amount payable by the Company will be for the purpose of its business in order to generate funds for its business activities. The amounts so obtained are used by the Company for the purposes of its business. Hence the liability to pay the additional amount would therefore be revenue expenditure.
With regard to interest u/s 234C of the Act , it is levied for deferment of payment of advance tax for the period of 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011. In the instant case, since, the cash was seized after the expiry of the previous year i.e. after 31.03.2011, the assessee cannot claim non-chargeability of interest u/s 234C on that account. Hence, interest u/s 234C of the Act is leviable in this case.
Action of the assessee in adopting the bank rate prevailing in Australia is correct and the AO erred in adopting the Indian bank rate. The loan amount was given in Australian currency and as per the promissory note the AE has to return the amount in Australian Dollar. Therefore, applying the ratio laid by the Hon’ble High Courts discussed above, we hold that there was no necessity of any arm’s length adjustment in this case
ITAT held that non-compete fee paid is an intangible asset acquired by the assessee on which depreciation has to be allowed u/s. 32(1)(ii) of the act.
DCIT Vs M/s. Ambuthirtha Power P. Ltd. (ITAT Bangalore) The issue in Maxopp Investment Ltd’s. case (supra) was whether the expenditure (including interest on borrowed funds) in respect of investment in shares of operating companies for acquiring and retaining a controlling interest therein was disallowable under Section 14A of the Act. In the said case […]
Treating the receipt of huge share application money by an investor-company as unexplained investment, merely due to the reason that low income was declared by such investor in its income-tax return, was not justified, since balance sheet of the investor produced by assessee had proved creditworthiness, genuineness and identity of the investor.
This appeal by the Revenue arises out of the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-Durgapur [in short the ld CIT(A)] in Appeal No. 08/CIT(A)/DGP/2015-16 dated 31.08.2016 against the order passed by the DCIT, Circle-1, Dgp [ in short the ld AO] under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act
If the parties to the agreement are bound by the terms and conditions mentioned therein and the Revenue cannot interpret the said agreement in its own way to include the other costs: Coca-Cola India Inc. case
Briefly the facts of the case are that no PAN and ITR has been filed in this case. The case was selected for scrutiny on the basis of AIR Information regarding cash deposits in S.B. account by assessee without quoting PAN numbers in the A.Y. under appeal.
