Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in restricting the disallowance u/s 14A to Rs.3,50,000/ as against Rs.1,46,78,090/ made by the Assessing Officer u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D without appreciating the fact that for invoking disallowance u/s 14A, it is not material that the assessee should have earned such exempt income during the financial year under consideration as per CBDT circular No.5/2014 dated 11.02.2014
CIT Vs. Smt. Madhuri Satish Misal (Bombay High Court) Amount which has been subjected to levy of penalty primarily on the ground that the assessee agreed to the addition and did not challenge it in appeal. The Tribunal in paras 19 to 21 of its order considered the principles which have to be invoked and […]
HC held that We do not see how it is possible for us to uphold the order of the Tribunal and when it purports to decide two Appeals of the Revenue by single paragraph conclusion. There is absolutely no discussion of the law and why the coordinate Bench decision rendered at Delhi is either distinguishable […]
It was held by Supreme Court in Karnani Properties Ltd vs. CIT [1972 AIR 2315, 1972 SCR (1) 457] that it is for the Tribunal to find facts and it is for the High Court and this Court to lay down the law applicable to the facts found. Neither the High Court nor this Court has jurisdiction, to go behind or to question the statements of facts made by the Tribunal.
If the unaccounted expenditure incurred is from the on money received by the assessee, then, the question of making any addition u/s 69C does not arise because the source of the expenditure is duly explained. It is only the ‘on money’ which can be considered for the purpose of taxation.
High Court held that (I) We hold that e-recharge is not covered by the Item No. 133 of the Government Notification dated 28th March 2013 and that in any event, LBT cannot be levied on erecharge; (II) We reject the contention of the petitioner that the LBT is not payable on the SIM cards and […]
High Court held that Tribunal’s order is confusing. In the impugned order, the Tribunal does not indicate what it means by AOP. It does not indicate as to what it means by TAS for both sides tell us that it is identical to TDS, namely, Tax Deducted at Source. We are unhappy with the abbreviations […]
Though the name of the respondent assessee is distinct in each of these Appeals, it is agreed that the Revenue is proposing similar questions in all of them. These Appeals of the Revenue arise out of the order passed by the Tribunal and taking a view that the grounds raised are covered, in majority of the cases, by the earlier order of the Tribunal.
Bombay High Court quashed and set aside an order of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) which directed a probe into the ‘cartelisation’ charge leveled against Vodafone India, Idea Cellular and Bharti Airtel Limited, by Reliance Jio.
A educational coaching is covered by the expression coaching centre as defined in section 65(26) and (27). That it is not on commercial basis or predominantly for profit is the only argument canvassed throughout.
