DCIT Vs. Kushal Infraproject Industries India Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) The assessee has admittedly sold the agricultural land as it is so there were no intention to do any business activity, therefore, period of holding would not be relevant. The intention of the assessee is therefore clear that assessee purchased the agricultural land and sold the […]
Rajasthan Gau Seva Sangh Vs CIT (ITAT Jaipur) It is pertinent to note that when the assessee is maintaining various Gaushalas then production of milk is bound to happen and dealing in purchase and sale of milk & milk products as well as cattle feed is nothing but the activity in furtherance of the objects […]
Receipts of advance against sale of commercial space is not a receipt in the nature of loan or advance as contemplated in section 2(22)(e) of the Income tax Act, 1961 which attracts the provisions of in that section as the said advance is in the nature of business advance which did not fall within the ambit of provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Income tax Act, 1961.
The issue under consideration is whether the assessee can challenge the order of AO for which he has agreed before without there being any contrary evidence?
Payments made to dealers for providing services to ultimate customers in lieu of free service coupons surrendered by them were not in the nature of reimbursement of expenditure incurred by dealers but in the nature of payment of consideration pursuant to a contract, as per which dealer provided such services to ultimate customers, accordingly, assessee was obligated to have deducted tax under section 194C from payments towards service coupons to its dealers.
The provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are penal in nature and they are required to be strictly construed. These cannot be extended by way of liberal interpretation to include the cases, which otherwise, do not fall within the purview and scope of the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
ITATheld that the ad hoc determination of ALP de-hors Section 92C of the Act cannot be sustained, rendering the entire transfer pricing adjustment unsustainable in law.
The issue under consideration is whether the change in method of valuation of inventory is allowed if it is based on AS 2 as prescribed by ICAI?
The issue under consideration is whether the addition u/s 68 is justified in case of issuance of shares in exchange of shares?
Since assessee did not receive any sum over and above the value of its investments from partnership firm on revaluation of assets, therefore, there could not be any levy of capital gains or any levy in the nature of income upon retirement of assessee from firm within the meaning of Section 2(24) in the hands of assessee.
