This conduct on part of the petitioner filing the petition interalia seeking early hearing of its appeal before the CIT (A) and at the same time when the appeal is fixed for hearing by the CIT (A), the petitioner is seeking adjournment on frivolous grounds indicating that the petitioner is not serious about attending the hearing. It appears to be time delaying tactics and abuse of the legal process. In fact on 11th July, 2016 the last adjournment sought by the petitioner was to fix the hearing of the appeal in August 2016. The very fact that the petitioner has been seeking adjournment time and again before the CIT (A) and filing the petition in this Court seeking early hearing of its appeal is an abuse of the process of law.
In the present facts there is nothing on record in the form of the Advocates letter, etc. to indicate that the petitioner acted upon his legal advise and the same was wrong. Therefore, whether the petitioner acted on advise of his Advocate or not is itself a subject matter of debate. Thus taking the application outside the scope of Section 254(2) of the Act.
Sub-section (10) of Section 80IA of the Act, cannot be invoked in the facts of the present case to restrict its deduction under Section 80IB of the Act on the basis of the profits of the Appellant’s wife unit at Valsad.
Revenue states that the impugned order itself holds that share premium of Rs.490/ per share defies all commercial prudence. Therefore it has to be considered to be cash credit.
The question raised in this appeal is, whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition on account of bogus purchases allegedly made by the assessee from M/s. Thakkar Agro Industrial Chem Supplies P. Ltd. According to the revenue, the Director of M/s. Thakkar Agro Industrial Chem Supplies P. Ltd.
Business is said to have been set up when it is established and ready to be commence. However, there may be an interval between a business which is set up and a business which is commenced. However, all expenses incurred during the interregnum between setting up of business and commencement of business would be permissible deductions.
These Appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), challenge a common order dated 11th October, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The common impugned order deleted the penalty imposed upon the Respondent Assessee for the Assessment Years 200304, 200405, 200506 and 2006-07.
Where An Assessee Makes Investment In The Specified Bonds On Receipt Of Advance As Per An Agreement To Sale, Whether He Is Entitled To Claim The Benefit Under Section 54EC Of The Income Tax Act, 1961? Yes
HC held that mark to market loss in respect of forward contracts claimed as loss from business income cannot be disallowed as the forward contracts were secured for to cover variation in foreign exchange rate which would impact its business of import and export of diamonds.
It is settled position in law that statement of fact recorded in the order of the Court/Tribunal has to be accepted as correct and conclusive. It cannot be contradicted by affidavit or otherwise
