In a recent ruling that will have a bearing on the buyback activities, the Bombay High Court held that the premium paid for buyback of shares shall be tax deductible as business expenditure. (CIT v. Chemosyn Ltd).
The question sought to be raised in this appeal relates to the deduction under section 80O of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act” for short). The Tribunal has considered this question taking into account the calculations made by the Assessing Officer
The issue which falls for our consideration is whether the applicant has shown sufficient cause so as to become entitled for condonation of delay of five years in preferring the appeal against the order dated 31.10.2008 passed by the Tribunal.
Uniformity in treatment at the hands of law is a basic premise of Rule of Law. We trust that the Revenue would take appropriate steps to ensure that the aforesaid directions be implemented in all subsequent matters which are pending Admissions before this Court.
erely stating that the tax effect was low in an earlier order resulting in not filing of an appeal across the bar, without the same being specifically put in affidavit or in the appeal memo cannot be accepted. This manner of filing of appeals enables the revenue to pick and choose orders from which appeals are preferred and from which the appeals are not preferred rendering to a naught equal application of law on all.
Is a query is raised during assessment proceedings and responded to by the Assessee, the mere fact that it is not dealt with in the Assessment Order would not lead to a conclusion that no mind had been applied to it. Section 263
Entire sales which are unaccounted cannot be undisclosed income of the assessee, particularly as the purchase had been accounted for. It was held that only net profit which would arise on such unaccounted sales can rightly be taken as the amount which could be added to the Respondent Assessee’s income for the purpose of tax.
TATA Engineering and Locomotive Co.Ltd.(Now Known as TATA Motors Ltd.)[the Appellant or the Company] is a manufacturer of Motor Vehicles and also engaged in the business of hire finance of Motor Vehicles.
Petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 234E seeks to levy a fee of Rs.200/- per day (subject to certain other conditions as set out therein) inter alia on a person who deducts Tax at Source (TDS) and then fails to deliver or cause to be delivered the TDS return/statements to the authorities within the prescribed period.
In the case of The Commissioner of Central Excise V/s. M/s. Essel Propack Ltd., it was held that prior to year 2006, the Explanation to Rule 2(p) of the CENVAT credit Rules would be applicable. On plain reading of the said explanation, as it is not disputed that the respondents are paying service tax
