Court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity with the ITAT order which essentially held that the valuation by the banker, who provided credit could well be different from the valuation report for the transaction given that the assessee had purchased the property long ago. In other words, the absence of any material […]
Suffice it to highlight that in paras 26 and 27 of the report the Committee highlighted the modus operandi adopted by PCL and AIL to form a loop with no cash flow coming in, but sales, stocks and receivables increases. The obligation of the auditor concerning transactions which are merely book entries was highlighted i.e. […]
This common judgment will dispose of a batch of writ petitions. They were heard together as they involve identical questions of fact and law as to the correct interpretation of Section 194-I of the Income Tax Act [hereafter the Act].
The assessee was a recipient of research and training grant and other income to the tune of Rs. 1.36 crores. The AO determined that the latter were commercial receipts and guided by proviso to Section 2(15) and held that the assessee could not avail the benefit under section 11(23) of the Act. The ITAT relied […]
The petitioner (Contractor) impugns the order dated 30.06.20 14 passed by the Commissioner Valued Added Tax holding that the chemicals/Solvents used in the process of cleaning, amounted to sale of goods and the moment the chemicals were poured on the property of the Contractee, even though used for the purposes of cleaning, amounted to delivery of the same and thus the same was exigible to Tax.
If tax exempted income was earned without interference of any employee but rather through solicitation and advertisement of bank the question of attributing any expenditure cannot arise at all.
The Institute of Chartered Accountants has made the instant Reference under Section 21(5) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 in respect of the respondent being indicted for a misconduct other than such misconduct which is referred to in sub-Section (4) of Section 21.
The fact that certain assets of undertaking are left out of sale transaction because it would cause inconvenience for purchaser does not mean that transaction is not a slump sale
A plain reading of Section 10(15)(iv)(c) clearly bears the fact that its approval of the Central Government which is necessary – not with respect to the transaction per se but with regard to the rate of interest.
his Court in Paras Buildtech India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2016) 382 ITR 630 (Del) had noted that this method is a known and recognised method of accounting, and was approved as a proper one. The Court had also relied on CIT v. Bilahari Investment Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR 1 (SC).
