In the present case, the dispute relates to the special deduction allowable under Section 80-IA contained in Chapter VI-A. Relevant provisions contained in Chapter VI-A including Section 80-IA (to the extent relevant),read as follows :-
Section 172 of the Act 1961 is carefully Title of Section 172 is Shipping business of non-residents. For bringing a case under Chapter XV, H of the Act 1961, one has to establish a case of profits of non-residents from occasional shipping business Non-resident is defined under section 2(30), as a person who is not a resident and for the purpose of Sections 92, 93 and 168, includes a person who is not ordinarily resident within the meaning of clause (6) of Section 6. considered by us. Chapter XV titles as LIABILITY IN SPECIAL CASES. We have no concern with sections, starting from Section 159, till Section 171 from this Chapter XV. Section 172 comes under sub-title H.-Profits of nonresidents from occasional shipping business. Title of Section 172 is Shipping business of non-residents. For bringing a case under Chapter XV, H of the Act 1961, one has to establish a case of profits of non-residents from occasional shipping business. Non-resident is defined under section 2(30), as a person who is not a
An appeal to the Appellate Tribunal shall be in the prescribed form and shall be verified in the prescribed manner and shall, in the case of an appeal made, on or after the 1st day of October, 1998, irrespective of the date of initiation of the assessment proceedings relating thereto, be accompanied by a fee of,
As a consequence of the amendments introduced by the 2007 Act, an application which abates for no fault of the applicant would, under section 245HA(2) revert back to the IT Authorities as if no application had, in the first place, been made under section 245C to the Settlement Commission. As inserted by the 2007 Act, Section 245HA(3) of the Act further provides that where an application so reverts to the IT Authorities upon abatement,
The Full Bench was constituted to consider whether for the purposes of allowing deduction under Ch. VI-A depreciation could be thrust on the assessee even though it had disclaimed the same for purposes of regular assessment. The assessee argued that as in accordance with Mahendra Mills 243 ITR 56 (SC), depreciation was optional and as Expl. 5 to s. 32 came into force only from AY 2002-2003, depreciation could not be thrust even for purposes of Ch. VI-A. HELD, deciding against the assessee:
The CLB cannot exercise its inherent powers to pass orders without jurisdiction or in utter disregard to orders passed by the Supreme Court or the High Court; an interim order passed by the CLB without jurisdiction and without giving reasons and in utter disregard to the orders passed by the Supreme Court and the High Court cannot be sustained.
S. 54 provides that if an assessee has LTCG on transfer of a residential house and he purchases or constructs a residential house within the specified period then the amount appropriated towards the new house shall be deducted from the LTCG.
CIT vs. G. R. Shipping (Bombay High Court) :- The assessee, engaged in shipping business, owned a barge which was included in the block of assets. The barge met with an accident and sank on 6.3.2000 (AY 2000-01). As efforts to retrieve the barge were uneconomical, the barge was sold on as-is-where- is in May 2001 (AY 2002-03).
In all the appeals before us, the specific case of the assesses is that the BSE card acquired by them on or after 1/4/1998 is an intangible asset covered under the expression ‘licences’ or alternatively covered under the expression ‘any other business or commercial rights of similar nature’ enumerated in section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and therefore, depreciation is allowable on the BSE card acquired by them.
S. 47 (v) provides that a transfer of a capital asset by a subsidiary company to its holding company shall not be regarded as a “transfer” if the whole of the share capital of the subsidiary company is held by the holding company. The assessee transferred shares to its subsidiary and claimed exemption from capital gains u/s 47 (v). The AO denied exemption on the ground that as two shares of the said subsidiary
