The issue is covered against the revenue by the Special Bench decision in Rajeev Sureshbahi Gajwani’s case (supra) and this decision binds this division bench. The theory of differentiation vs discrimination was relevant, relevant if it was, only for the India US tax treaty
We find that the assessee has made payment on or before the due date of filing of return u/s. 139(1) of the Act and this issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Vijay Shree Limited, supra, wherein Hon’ble Calcutta High Court has held as under
It is well settled that in 153A/C assessments additions cannot be made unless they are based on any incriminating material or inquiries based on such material. It clearly emerges from record that there is neither reference nor reliance on any incriminating material.
Interest is a term relating to a pre-existing debt, which implies a debtor creditor relationship. According to us, unpaid consideration gives rise to a lien over goods sold and not for money lent. This interpretation of ours is supported by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court
The issue of revenue’s appeal is that the CIT(A) has wrongly deleted the disallowance made by AO under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules at Rs.55,47,700/-. Here the assessee before the lower authorities and even before us explained that out of the total interest payment of Rs.97,22,656/-, the interest aggregating to Rs. 92,69,529/- was paid to Brila Global Finance Co. Ltd.,
There cannot be any dispute with the legal contention of the learned counsel that the reimbursement of the expenses can never be income. Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has also held that the reimbursement of expenses can under no circumstances
In this case, assessee has earned by way of dividends a sum of Rs.5,45,58,685/-, which is exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act and thus the same does not form part of the total income under the Act. In the computation of income, assessee having regard to section 14A of the Act
The appellant is a partnership firm engaged in construction business which was subject to a search action u/s 132(1) of the Act on 06.10.2009. In the course of search, Shri Rajesh Malpani, partner of the assessee firm in a statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act on 03.12.2009
The Assessing Authority having noticed that the assessee-company had accepted share application money in cash from its directors in violation of provisions of section 269SS, imposed penalty under section 271D and Commissioner (Appeals) upheld penalty order.
Assessing Officer has held that (a) Carbon Credit is not a capital receipt, (b) cost of acquisition of Carbon Credit is NIL & (c) entire receipt is taxable as capital gain. However, in the computation, it has been added as Business income.
