There is no dispute about the allowability of expenses. Only dispute is regarding the year of allowability. If the Assessing officer is of the view that the expenses are pertaining to the prior, the same are required to be considered for the prior and allowed in that year.
The court considered the reasoning of the Revenue and held, firstly as the arrangement was in place with the UTI (which had to purchase the NCDs at Rs. 389/- per NCD), the assessee gave effect to it (the arrangement). UTI paid Rs. 389/- per debenture to JISCO
The substantial time as extended in the previous judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)-I vs. C.J.International Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (in ITA No.57/2015) decided on 09.02.2015, as discussed elaborately in a reasoned order of this Court
Whether CIT can give approval for initiating proceeding u/s 147 in place of JCIT who is prescribed authority to give such approval u/s 151 (2) of the Income-tax Act.
Whether a proportion of the project receipts, commensurate with the risks/performance obligations, should be attributed to the assessee JV to whom tender had been awarded for the project and undertook significant risks and responsibilities for the completion of the project
Hon’ble court has observed that in the case of Bajrang Lal (supra) it was held that it is settled law that the primary burden to prove understatement or concealment of income is on the Revenue and it is only when such burden is discharged it would be permissible to rely upon the valuation given by the DVO.
Whether revenue is right in passing order giving instruction to bank to pay 50% of the demand raised against assessee when appeal against the assessment order was pending before CIT (A).
The appellant is urging this Court to dwell deep into the factual material and render findings of fact of which the jurisdiction of this Court does not permit such an inquiry as the high court cannot entertain an appeal which involves only factual issue.
In the cited case, Delhi High Court held that the building had been developed to be sold or let out with no possibility of the terrace floor being subjected to such utilization. As there is no other purpose to be served by the property held on the terrace floor
Lump-sum payments are covered under the term royalty. The agreement postulated grant of permission to use or right to use intellectual property rights or knowhow and it is not a case of outright sale.
