Assessee is entitled to raise not merely additional legal submissions before the Appellate Authorities but is also entitled to raise additional claims. The Appellate Authorities have jurisdiction to deal with additional grounds, which were available when the return was filed.
A division bench of the Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. M/s.Urban Infrastructure Venture Capital Ltd has allowed a tenants’ claim for depreciation towards capital expenditure incurred on the leased premises.
The only question is whether the guarantee commission paid to the bankers for securing timely repayment of credit facility and loan from financial institutions for the purpose of machinery and equipments is revenue expenditure. The Division Bench of this Court in case of Kinetic Engineering Ltd (supra) was dealing precisely with the said issue, wherein, […]
S. 145A: Irrespective of the method of accounting followed, the unutilized Cenvat credit does not constitute income and cannot be directly added to the closing stock. The assessee is entitled to follow the exclusive method and value the closing stock by excluding the modvat credit
S. 271(1)(c): If the basis on which penalty is initiated by the AO and the basis on which the quantum is confirmed on merits by the Tribunal are different, penalty cannot be levied
Commissioner has invoked its powers under Section 12(AA)(3) of the Act. The said powers are circumscribed by the limitations imposed under Sub Section 3 of Section 12AA of the Act. The Commissioner, nowhere has given the finding that the activities of the Respondent institution are not genuine one or that the said activity carried out are not in consonance with the object of the institution.
The present Appeal pertains to Assessment year 200405. The learned counsel for the Appellant submits that Tribunal was not justified in not accepting the reworking of the book profits by the Assessing Officer as per the provisions of Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act.
Assessment Order is without jurisdiction as the law laid down by the Apex Court in GKN Driveshafts (supra) has not been followed, then there is no reason to restore the issue to the Assessing Officer to pass a further/fresh order. If this is permitted, it would give a licence to the Assessing Officer to pass […]
The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the tax effect involved in the present appeal is less than Rs.20 lakhs and as per the CBDT Circular No.21 of 2015 dated 10th December, 2015, the department has taken a policy decision not to prosecute the appeals wherein the tax effect is less than Rs.20 lakhs.
The Tribunal considered the merits and once again, at great length. The particular argument revolving around the statement of Dilip Dherai and his answer to question No. 24 was also considered in paragraph 21 of the impugned order. Then, in paragraph 22, the Tribunal refers to the additions made under Section 69C.
