It is now settled position of law that, while considering the application for waiver of pre-deposit, the Tribunal or the Appellate Authorities are directed to take into consideration three factors namely, prima facie case, undue hardship and the interest of Revenue.
Whether tribunal was right in allowing appeal of the assessee holding that the interest income earned by the assessee on fixed deposits with the bank and other interest income are eligible for deduction u/s 80IA.
The hospital had hired the doctors i.e professionals for their expertise, experience, and skill in the profession and requests them to be associated with the hospital, then their engagement cannot be said to be of employer-employee relationship.
The learned counsel for assessee justified the claim for depreciation on the ground that these amounts which were capitalized, represented expenditure incurred in raising finance for the acquisition of and/or for brining into existence capital assets and thus formed part of the cost of fixed assets.
The sole issue in the present writ petition is whether information related to income-tax returns of politician can be provided to any individual in purview of proviso of section 8 (1) (j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the information
An Assessee cannot be compelled with the quantum of additions as admitted during the course of assessment proceedings if the said additions were not offered to tax in the return of income.
Vodafone India Services (P) Ltd. Is a wholly owned subsidiary of Vodafone Tele-Services (India) Holdings Ltd., a non resident company Mauritian entity. Vodafone Holding is AE (Associate Enterprise) of Vodafone India for the purpose of transfer pricing provisions under chapter X of Income Tax Act 1961. Vodafone india is engaged in providing service in relation to Telecommunication in india.
As far as question No.5 is concerned, we find the factual situation the backdrop of which this question is raised to be most unfortunate, disturbing and dangerous to say the least. The Tribunal as a matter of routine goes on consolidating appeals.
Madhukar B. Thakoor vs. ITAT (Bombay High Court)- Hon’ble Supreme Court cautioned the Presiding Officer of the Courts and Tribunals from adversely commenting and remarking on the conduct of parties or their representatives or pleaders.
The facts and which are taken from the director’s report itself would indicate that the Assessee had disclosed what was relevant and necessary for the purpose of making assessment. The Assessee did not hold back any document nor failed to supply any information in addition to the explanation given by it in writing concerning the said management fees expenses. In the circumstances, this is a clear case of change of opinion and based on which, the reassessment is proposed.
