By section 254(4) of the IT Act, an order which has been passed by the Tribunal reaches finality the moment the same is passed: it cannot be touched thereafter. By section 254(2) of the act, the Tribunal, however, has been authorized to rectify mistakes in its orders, which are apparent on the face of the records.
In the present case, the assessee has failed to carry out his obligations and hence, the burden cannot be shifted to the revenue to find out from the creditors about their identity and credit worthiness after receiving the names and addresses of the creditors.
Foreign exchange fluctuation loss cannot be called notional loss since the fall in the exchange rate has already taken place in the accounting year. Accounting Standards-11 provides that the entire amount of liabilities outstanding as at the balance sheet date should be restated and the loss should be charged to the Profit and Loss account of each year.
In a big relied to Baba Ramdev’s Patanjali Yogpeeth, the Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has allowed exemption status under section 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act.
Whole issue in the present appeal by Revenue, is about the source, nature and genuineness of the transaction to determine whether the addition made by the AO under section 68 of the Act is sustainable.
Invocation of proviso to section 2(15) of the Act to deny claim of exemption under section 11 and 12 of the Act is not justified. Accordingly, grounds of appeal are allowed
Challenging the order,dated 02/01/2013,of the CIT(A)-20,Mumbai the Assessing Officer (AO)has filed the present appeal.The assessee has filed cross objections. Assessee-company is an international airline engaged in the business of passenger and cargo transportation.
Article 7(1) of the DTAA between India and Netherlands provides for taxing profits of the enterprise in the other state only to the extent they are attributable to the PE in the other state, adopting No Force of Attraction principle. With the above broad principles in mind we will now consider the facts of the present case and the rival contentions
Tribunal held that sale of SIM Cards/recharge coupons at discounted rate to distributors is not commission and therefore, not liable to TDS provisions u/s. 194H of the Act. Once, the substratum for levy of penalty has eroded there is no question for sustaining the penalty.
It is correct that the terms of partnership provided payment of interest at the rate of 12 per cent on capital of partners as well as remuneration to the working partners. The assesses, however, did not make payment thereof to the partners nor made any provision of liability in the books of account
