Where a vehicle was provided by assessee to the concerned parties and assessee was to bear the vehicle expenses actually incurred by the cab owners which will be reimbursed by the parties concerned, reimbursement of actual expenses incurred by assessee could not be treated as payment subject to TDS under section 194C.
DHL Logistics Private Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) We have to consider whether goodwill is an intangible asset under section 32, hence, eligible for claim of depreciation. In our view, this issue is no more res integra in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smifs Securities Ltd. (supra) where the Hon’ble Supreme […]
Forward contracts in the nature of hedging transactions in course of normal import export activities to cover up losses on account of foreign exchange valuation difference results in business losses and not speculative one.
Revised/enhanced minimum threshold limit of tax effect of Rs. 50 Lakh vide CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, dated 8-8-2019 was applicable not only for appeals to be filed by Revenue in future; but also for appeals already filed by Revenue in ITAT. Therefore, all existing appeals in ITAT, having tax effect below the revised/enhanced limit of Rs. 50,00,000, were to be treated as withdrawn/not pressed; and were, not maintainable.
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not be levied for bonafide explanation furnished by assessee as assessee had not offered interest income for tax due to wrong interpretations of the provisions of the Act, not on account of deliberate concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income.
The issue under consideration is whether in case of real estate, tax liability will be arise when land was sold or when same was contributed for development under JDA?
The issue under consideration is that whether the activities carried out by Surat Urban Development Authority are considered as Charitable Activities and hence entitled to the exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act or not?
The moot point discussed here is very important where in, the allowed quantity as per the Instruction no 1916 is applicable in case where the assessee does not explain the source of the jewellery and the presumptive quantity is allowed. Such quantity is a Blanket Allowance.
Omega Corrugators Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT Mumbai bench has held that genuine omissions must be excluded from the levy of penalty under section 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. We find that assessee has debited a sum of Rs.3,57,541/- towards loss on sale of motor car in its profit and […]
Veritas (India) Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) Conclusion: Assessee had established identity of investors and submitted documents to establish creditworthiness and the certificate issued by the Firm of Accountants for proving the movement of funds from ultimate investors to the foreign companies which establish genuineness of transactions thus, assessee had discharged initial burden placed upon […]
