Cousel fo the Assessee submits that , the ITAT had erred in confirming the disallowance of expenditure on remuneration and training of a working Director of the Appellant-Assessee that was incurred legitimately for the efficient management
Though Section 201 does not prescribe any limitation period for the Assessee being declared as an Assessee in Default yet the Revenue will have to exercise the powers in that regard within a reasonable time.
Assessee alongwith his wife jointly owned bungalow. The bungalow was sold at Rs.3/ crores. With this sum, they bought three flats, one in the Assessee’s name, another in the name of Assessee and his wife and third in the name of the wife.
It is true that the reasons for initiating re-assessment proceedings do in fact state that there was a failure on the part of the Petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment.
he Division Bench held that a legal practitioner having an office cannot be said to be carrying on commercial activity and would not fall within the definition of the expression commercial establishment.
The tendency not to accept any adverse verdict on facts results in frivolous Appeals being filed in this Court. That causes huge loss to the public exchequer and results in wastage of precious judicial time of this Court.
Bombay high court in scheme of amalgamation between Wadala Commodities Limited with Godrej Industries Limited has passed a judgment on postal ballot and e-voting. Court has observed that postal ballot and e-voting is an additional facility and cannot have the effect of dispensing the general meeting at all.
Bombay High Court in scheme of amalgamation between Wadala Commodities Limited with Godrej Industries Limited has stated that gazetted copy of many MCA rules are not available, hence in the opinion of the court they are not binding so far or at least from 1st April 2014.
Affidavit of service dated 10 April 2014 is filed indicating that Respondent nos.1 and 2 have received the notice on 31 March 2014 and 8 April 2014 respectively. Though served, none appears for Respondent nos.1 and 2.
The assessee contended that the expenditure under the said claims are only for promotion of sales and hence had no relation to payment of any commission on sales. The assessee contended that therefore tax at source is not required to be deducted as the said expenditure did not fell within the ambit of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act.
